Obligation to conclude an energy supply contract - EU law?

Hello :-)

Last year, we already bought a townhouse in FFM from a property developer. Since living space in Frankfurt (including a garden for our little daughter) is unfortunately scarce, there weren’t many offers to choose from. Overall, the developer’s offer was good, so we signed. Nevertheless, there was a clause that never quite sat well with us from the start, but we swallowed that bitter pill due to lack of alternatives.

The purchase contract includes an obligation on our part to conclude an energy supply contract with a provider we affectionately call the "pellet guy" ;-). Next to the townhouses built by the developer, there is a central pellet system supplying the houses. We are now obliged to sign a supply contract with this energy service provider.

This contract, in turn, stipulates that for the next 10 years (option for 20 years with a lower base price), we must obtain our heating exclusively from them.

As I said, it never sat well with us, and it somehow seemed like a restriction of competition. We wouldn’t have been able to buy the house without committing to this energy service provider for 10 years. I eventually told a lawyer friend about it. He said he could imagine that this obligation is void for two reasons.

Firstly, it supposedly contradicts EU legislation, which requires the free choice of the basic supplier. Secondly, he sees tendencies toward a draconian contract.

Now, he specializes in family and asylum law and said I should contact consumer protection or a specialized lawyer.

I’ve already tried consumer protection, had an appointment, but it seemed to me that the case is too "rare" and too "individual" for them to be motivated to take it on. They only recorded it for internal discussion.

Therefore, before going to a specialized lawyer, I wanted to ask here if such or similar cases are known and if anyone might roughly be familiar with this.

Many thanks in advance for your feedback!

Best regards

Stefan

Unfortunately, I cannot help you legally in this matter. In the neighboring town, there is an identical offer. Combined heat and power plant (wood chips) mandatory for 20 years.

What bothers you about a central pellet supply? You also save space in the house......

Oops. Just read the passage: "Raumwärme ausschließlich über diesen beziehen müssen." That means you probably are not allowed to have a fireplace and therefore probably no wood stove/Swedish stove etc. in the living room...

Hello Stefan,

Therefore, before I go to a specialized lawyer, I wanted to first ask here if such / similar cases are known and if perhaps someone has a rough idea about it.

First of all - legal advice in Germany is exclusively reserved for legal professions; therefore, I am not allowed to give you any comparable advice!

And secondly - I remain true and honest to myself - I find your approach more than borderline; unfortunately, also topical. You bought a house along with the land because you liked the parameters. You accepted the homeowner clause knowingly ... now you want to fight against it. This strongly reminds me of the English houses around Düsseldorf Airport, which – because they were cheap – sold in no time and now the buyers are up in arms because of the aircraft noise. If I had even a bit of influence – I would let them all fail – wholehearted!

I am currently dealing a lot with municipal properties whose supply is secured via district heating. Regardless of how anyone personally feels about district heating, it is completely legitimate to take this "exclusive" route. If it were otherwise, the municipal suppliers here in NRW would be faced with a wave of lawsuits.

Regarding the topic "draconian contract" or "right to free basic supply": it did not force you – at least you write nothing about it – to conclude the developer contract. So it was your free decision to take this path. I once learned that "contract" forms the basis of "to endure", that may not have reached you yet.

Kind regards

Hello construction expert,

first of all, thank you for your feedback, although unfortunately I could not find a direct substantive reference to my question.

First of all - legal advice in Germany is exclusively reserved for legal professions; therefore I am not allowed to give you any comparable advice!

I had also explicitly asked if anyone is aware of such cases here. I would never seek legal advice in a forum, unless it is a legal twisting forum :cool: Therefore, my question aimed at experiences that can certainly still be publicly shared in Germany.

Furthermore, I think you judge a little too early. You do not know my reasons, and it seems you are not familiar with the real estate market in Frankfurt. The latter is quite easy to describe: there simply ARE no affordable houses in Frankfurt. My reasons are not about making a profit somewhere now. I would have been willing to pay more for the house if I had been allowed to freely choose the energy supply. Therefore, I somehow do not see a comparison to those who "speculate" with plots/houses at the airport to make money as justified. As I said, I would also be willing to pay the supplier something. However, that should relate to the proportional investment costs and not to lost profit.

I do not really know much about energy supply (otherwise I would not have to ask)! In particular, I have no clue about municipal approval procedures and in this context WHO decides about the prices? Who tells me that the prices negotiated between the developer and the pellet man are fair? Fair in the sense that of course the pellet man is allowed to make a profit. But who guarantees that the developer does not secretly receive a commission for that again and that this is included in the price? Was the price for the supply tendered? Who is the controlling authority overseeing this?

Of course, no one forced me to sign the developer contract at the notary. But in the GDR, no one was forced to buy a beautiful and overpriced Trabant either, yet there was no alternative—if you wanted a car. And we wanted the garden for our daughter.

Best regards back

Stefan

Hello construction expert,

let me mention again at this point that even this post of yours does not take my substantive questions into account.

Whether something is legally sound or not is, thankfully, still decided by the courts in the democratic state you cited, and it may well be that you cannot understand or like my way of thinking, but that does not legitimize your very narrow view on this topic as the only correct one.

Regardless, the contract I have to sign contains a "loyalty clause." The contract states that both parties have the right to request a renegotiation of the contract if the legal bases and assumptions on which the contract is based are not valid in this form, and as I have already said, that is exactly my intention.

Yes, I know the real estate market very well through my second job - evaluation of construction documents - I have recently prepared many evaluations for Asians who bought a house or a condominium in the Frankfurt area. Regardless, it doesn’t matter whether there are any plots of land or not; btw, there are plots, just a little outside the Frankfurt Zeil.

The distance from our property to the Zeil is about 12 km, so I think I am already quite far to the outside. However, in the price range between €300,000 and €400,000, "your" Asians don’t seem to move. When a property appears for sale somewhere, the owners are immediately bombarded with higher offers and almost forced to sell. Maybe those are exactly "your" Asians? ;-) Foreclosures for reasonable properties reach 150% of the expert value. Be that as it may, the supply is extremely scarce! But you’re right in the end, it doesn’t play a decisive role. It only explains why our choice was also very limited and not as free as you portrayed.

You decided to sign exactly this notarial purchase agreement. With that, a bilateral, closed, and valid legal transaction was concluded. At the time of notarization, you were also aware that you were entering into an obligation to take possession. If it suddenly seems so unacceptable to you, why don’t you just sell everything again?

Who here talks about it being unacceptable? Me? You would have to show me where I wrote that. First of all, I want to understand who is responsible for what in these constellations. That’s why I tried/attempted to inform myself, which, in this democratic state, is still legitimate. That’s also why I asked corresponding and concrete questions, which you also did not answer. Without this knowledge, I myself do not want to judge whether it is coercion, tying-up, taking advantage, or actually a legally valid contract.

There is absolutely no speculation with the properties at Düsseldorf Airport; on the contrary. The current owners acquired the land - former barracks houses of the British at the time - very cheaply notarized - knowing that the airport brings noise pollution. Shortly after all the houses were sold, communities formed from these buyers and have since contested exactly what they notarized and recognized as purchased: the aircraft noise. I have no understanding for that at all; moreover, it costs taxpayers endless money; delays in airport expansion not included.

Well, for me, that is speculation. By chance, I know someone who bought such a property and is trying to "cash in" on the aircraft noise, even though he rents it out!!! However, I do not find this good for the reasons you described and which are understandable.

And why didn’t you have these questions clarified *before* the notarized contract with a specialist lawyer? Now, in my opinion, you will no longer get out of the contract and must live with the consequences of your decision. In your life, you will repeatedly meet people who benefit financially from your decisions in one way or another; that’s called a free market economy.

Well, as I said, initially due to a lack of alternatives and, on the other hand, certainly also due to ignorance. That reimbursements and "crooked" price determinations can take place in the background, I would never have suspected if such an agreement is approved by a notary, who, as far as I know, also has a duty to examine. But I note that mistakes are not tolerated by you ;-) Whether it was free market economy or (not free) price fixing, I am currently trying to find out and clarify. It certainly wasn’t my first real estate purchase, but as I said, I am no studied expert. But I immediately think of a case from my field where the mediation of services with reimbursement to the broker was declared invalid by the Federal Court of Justice, even though the buyers there also contractually committed themselves to the purchase. The banks can sing long songs about that.

Or should a woman who is mandated by her employer to agree not to become pregnant for the next 10 years suddenly have to abide by that in Germany? I hope not!

Whether you like it personally or not, there are many contracts in Germany that have been declared void by courts afterwards. That may please some or not, but it reflects reality, and I personally think it is good that a market power is not necessarily exposed without protection. That is why we live in a social market economy.

That is an absurd comparison! The GDR was a communist dictatorship; you made a decision for a notary contract in a free democratic state - you had a choice at all times!

Every Trabant driver also had the choice not to have a Trabant!!! Then he simply would have been without a Trabant and ridden a bicycle - just as we would have remained in our three-room apartment without a garden. A free choice is something else, and maybe not everything is as black and white as you depict it.

Ultimately, this public discussion about two different subjective opinions benefits no one here - nor other forum participants. We can gladly continue to discuss this by private message, but I think the factual and technical content should be the focus in the forum. ;-)

Kind regards

Stefan