Since the Chatel Act, we thought finally ended on the taxing of Cost of calls to both hotlines cybermachands as providers to the Internet. Indeed, the law of January 3, 2008 was added to the Consumer Code to impose some additional obligations. For
cybermerchants and more generally, to any distance seller, the Chatel Act, provides in Article L. 121-19 III is a professional obligation to provide the latest at the time of delivery:
" means of communication, enabling customers to monitor the execution of his order, to exercise its right of withdrawal or to invoke the warranty only support communication costs, exclusive of any specific additional cost. "The Consumer Code imposes the professional, when issuing a telephone number to track the order, to exercise a right of withdrawal or use the guarantee that every call to this telephone number is no specific additional cost. This has been interpreted as allowing the professional to communicate either a geographic number (01, etc..) A number Azur (charged at local call cost, subject to certain subscriptions ...). For
electronic communications operators (ISPs, cable operators, etc..) Chatel law imposed in Article L. 121-84-5 of the Consumer Code, for after-sales services, technical assistance or any other agency responsible for processing claims relating to the execution of the contract with the operator:
" (...) The services mentioned are accessible from metropolitan France, overseas departments and overseas territories of Mayotte, Saint- Barthelemy, Saint Martin and Saint Pierre and Miquelon, a non-geographic telephone number, fixed and non-premium.
When the consumer calls from the territories listed in the second paragraph of the services mentioned in the first paragraph using the public telephone service provider's electronic communications services with which he agreed that contract, no amount may, in any capacity whatsoever, it being charged until it has been linked with a party that supports the effective processing of the request ".This text therefore posed two principles: 1 / no overcharged for the call to the hotline and 2 / free waiting time. Regarding the definition of a call "no surcharge" ARCEP came to make some information with its decision of May 6, 2008 .
Subsequent to this legislation, some providers to the Internet have developed a practice of not to charge the call to the hotline but to charge the service provided, namely the technical support.
This workaround has been criticized by some elected officials. On the occasion of the review - as of December 8, 2010 - the bill on telecommunications , Senator Hedgehog presented on behalf of the Commission of the economy, an amendment This amendment proposes to add after the precision on non-taxation of numbers in a new sentence in Article L. 121-84-5 reads:
" No additional cost other than the telephone call may be billed for these services under the telephone call. "Thus, ISPs can not charge an" additional cost "for the use of these services plus the cost of telephone communication.
Will it be enough? The judges say . Especially since the local court of Paris VIII issued several judgments September 27, 2010 concerning the enforcement and compliance Chatel practice of charging Free technical assistance in the field of service delivery separately.
To J. Proximity:
"Whereas it is undisputed that the waiting time is not billed by the company FREE, in accordance with the law Chatel.
Considering however that this law does not in any way the billing of technical assistance itself.
Whereas, initially charging for technical assistance, no waiting time at the same rate as former calls to the hotline, the Company has FREE respected not only the conditions of sale in 2006 but also the provisions of the law Chatel.Note that in this case, after establishing compliance with the law of the additional billing performed by Free, the judges sentenced the provider to refund the amounts paid on the grounds that " bound by an obligation of result [ISP] shall reimburse the € 22.17 charged for technical assistance, these calls have been needed to restore services .
Source: J. Prox. Paris 8e, 27/09/2010, Vincent X c / FREE SAS (unpublished)
Author: Benoit Tabaka - http://tabaka.blogspot.com 
0 comments:
Post a Comment