Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2021:309
Date: 2021-04-15
Language of the case: Finnish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Finland

Translation C-594/20 – 1 
Case C-594/20 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged:  
12 November 2020 
Referring court or tribunal:  
Markkinaoikeus (Finland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
11 November 2020 
Applicant:  
Kuluttaja-asiamies (Consumer Ombudsman) 
Defendant:  
MiGame Oy 
  
MARKKINAOIKEUS 
(Market Court, 
Finland) 
 
INTERLOCUTORY 
ORDER 
[…] 
 11 November 2020 […] 
APPLICANT Kuluttaja-asiamies (Consumer Ombudsman, Finland) 
DEFENDANT MiGame Oy 
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS  Matter of 
consumer protection; Request to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a 
preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union 
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 
1 In the main proceedings, it is necessary to determine whether MiGame Oy 
infringed consumer protection legislation by providing a chargeable national 
telephone number for making contact by telephone in relation to contracts for the 
sale of consumer goods concluded previously, and whether the continuation or 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11.11.2020 – CASE C-594/20 
 
2  
resumption of that practice must be prohibited. The case concerns, in particular, 
the question of how Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending 
Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and 
Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, is to be 
interpreted with regard to the provision of multiple telephone numbers and with 
regard to the permitted basic rate when determining the extent to which and the 
manner in which the continuation or resumption of that practice may be 
prohibited. [Or. 2] 
FACTS RELEVANT TO THE DECISION TO BE GIVEN 
Background to the dispute 
2 MiGame Oy provided, at least for a certain period of time, the chargeable national 
telephone number 0600 302 302 on the websites ‘latauskoodit.fi’, ‘migame.fi’ and 
‘viihdemaa.fi’, on Facebook pages and in emails sent to consumers in relation to 
contracts for the sale of consumer goods concluded previously. The cost of a call 
to this number was usually specified as being EUR 1.98 per minute. 
3 In addition to that telephone number, a mobile telephone number was also 
provided in some cases in 2019 and 2020, for example in the following form: ‘Our 
customer service is provided to you primarily by telephone via our 24-hour 
telephone service: 0600-302302 (EUR 1.98 per minute). If your inquiry concerns 
an order that has already been placed, you can also contact our freephone 
customer service number 045-[–] (11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays).’ This mobile 
telephone number was also provided, for example, in the terms of delivery of the 
website ‘latauskoodit.fi’, whereas only the chargeable telephone number was 
provided on the homepage and in the contact details section of the website. 
Proceedings before the Market Court 
4 By application lodged on 20 August 2019, the Consumer Ombudsman sought an 
order from the Market Court prohibiting MiGame Oy, on pain of a penalty 
payment, from continuing or resuming a practice in which, for the purpose of 
being contacted by telephone in relation to contracts for the sale of consumer 
goods previously concluded, it provides on its websites ‘latauskoodit.fi’ and 
‘migame.fi’, on its Facebook pages, in replies by email or in other forms of 
communication with customers, a telephone number for the use of which 
consumers are charged fees that exceed their contractually agreed rate or the 
calculated basic rate provided for in Paragraph 14 of Chapter 2 of the 
Kuluttajansuojalaki (Law on consumer protection). 
MIGAME OY 
 
3 
5 According to the Consumer Ombudsman, Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU, 
having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 September 2018 in 
Starman [Or. 3] (C-332/17, EU:C:2018:781), prevents a trader from making 
available a telephone number for which a higher rate than the normal rate applies, 
even if the trader, in addition to the more expensive telephone number, also offers, 
in a manner that is comprehensible and easily accessible for consumers, another 
telephone number for which a rate no higher than the basic rate is charged. 
6 Furthermore, according to the Consumer Ombudsman, the calculated basic rate 
provided for in Paragraph 14 of Chapter 2 of the Law on consumer protection 
exceeds the costs actually incurred by the consumer when calling a standard 
geographic landline or mobile telephone line. According to the judgment of the 
Court of Justice of 2 March 2017 in Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren 
Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main (C-568/15, EU:C:2017:154), the concept of 
‘basic rate’ in Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU precludes the consumer from 
incurring, on the basis of the calculated basic rate provided for in Paragraph 14 of 
Chapter 2 of the Law on consumer protection, charges for a call, relating to a 
contract for the sale of consumer goods previously concluded, to a helpline 
provided by the trader that exceed the cost of a call to a standard geographic 
landline or mobile telephone line. 
7 MiGame Oy opposed the application on the ground, inter alia, that a prohibition is 
not necessary because the company has implemented all the changes requested by 
the Consumer Ombudsman and is not continuing the practice described in the 
application. 
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
EU law and case-law of the Court of Justice 
8 According to the first paragraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU, Member 
States are to ensure that where the trader [Or. 4] operates a telephone line for the 
purpose of contacting him by telephone in relation to the contract concluded, the 
consumer, when contacting the trader is not bound to pay more than the basic rate. 
Pursuant to Article 4 of the directive, the purpose of the aforementioned provision 
is to achieve complete harmonisation. 
9 The Court of Justice interpreted the concept of ‘basic rate’ in its judgment of 
2 March 2017 in Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am 
Main (C-568/15, […]). According to the Court of Justice, the concept of ‘basic 
rate’ refers to an ordinary rate for a telephone call at no additional cost for the 
consumer (paragraph 27). Charges for a call, relating to a contract concluded with 
a trader, to a telephone helpline operated by the trader may not exceed the cost of 
a call to a standard geographic landline or mobile telephone line (paragraph 32). It 
was also stated in that judgment that an interpretation of the concept of ‘basic rate’ 
to the effect that traders are permitted to charge rates higher than that of a standard 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11.11.2020 – CASE C-594/20 
 
4  
call to a geographic landline or mobile telephone line would be liable to 
discourage consumers from using a telephone helpline in order to obtain 
information in relation to the contract concluded with the trader or from asserting 
their rights relating to, inter alia, a guarantee or withdrawal (paragraph 29). 
10 In that case, the Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar of 10 November 2016 
(EU:C:2016:863) referred to the DG Justice Guidance Document concerning 
Directive 2011/83/EU, paragraph 10 of which states, inter alia, that, to comply 
with that ‘basic rate’ requirement, ‘traders should use telephone numbers such as 
standard (geographic) landlines or mobile telephone lines that are not subject to 
any special tariff regime. Non-geographic numbers that electronic 
communications service providers normally include in their offers of ‘bundles’ of 
minutes at a fixed monthly price, and numbers charged at no more than rates for 
calls to geographic numbers would also be examples of numbers charged at the 
basic rate (point 44). [Or. 5] 
11 The Court of Justice also interpreted the aforementioned provision in its judgment 
in the Starman case of 13 September 2018 (C-332/17, […]), in which it stated that 
the provision precludes a situation in which, if a trader has made available to all 
its customers one or more speed dial numbers at a rate higher than the basic rate, 
consumers who have concluded a contract with the trader in question pay more 
than the basic rate when contacting that trader by telephone in relation to that 
contract (paragraph 33). 
National law 
12 Paragraph 14 of Chapter 2 (1211/2013) of the Law on consumer protection 
(38/1978) transposes Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU into national law. 
Pursuant to subparagraph 1, a trader may not use, for the purpose of being 
contacted by telephone in relation to contracts for the sale of consumer goods 
concluded by him, a service for the use of which the consumer is charged costs 
which exceed the costs of his contractually agreed rate or exceed the calculated 
basic rate corresponding to his rate. Pursuant to subparagraph 2, the calculated 
basic rate is the rate based on the minimum rate and market shares of the 
telecommunications companies plus 20 per cent. The Viestintävirasto 
(Telecommunications Authority), now the Liikenne- ja viestintävirasto (Transport 
and Telecommunications Authority), calculates and publishes the calculated basic 
rate annually. The method for determining and publishing the basic rate is 
provided for in greater detail in a decree of the Ministry of Justice. Pursuant to 
subparagraph 3 of Paragraph 14, if the trader fails to comply with the provisions 
of the paragraph, the consumer is entitled to receive compensation from the trader 
for telephone costs incurred by him in excess of the maximum rate referred to in 
subparagraph 1. 
13 Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of the Decree of the Ministry of Justice (109/2014) on the 
basic rate to be charged for telephone calls relating to contracts for the sale of 
MIGAME OY 
 
5 
consumer goods, when determining the calculated basic rate within the meaning 
of Paragraph 14 of Chapter 2 of the Law on consumer protection, the 
Telecommunications Authority, now the Transport and Telecommunications 
Authority, must take account of the telecommunications undertakings which have 
the largest [Or. 6] market share in terms of the number of mobile telephone 
subscribers and whose combined market share amounts to at least 95%. For those 
undertakings, it must calculate the average value of the rates according to the rates 
applicable to mobile telephone charges on a per-minute basis, taking into account 
the market shares of each undertaking. 
14 The calculated basic rate announced by the Transport and Telecommunications 
Authority on 19 June 2019 and 6 May 2020 was EUR 0.084 per minute. 
15 The travaux préparatoires for Paragraph 14 of Chapter 2 of the Law on consumer 
protection (HE [government bill] 157/2013 vp, p. 28) state the following: 
‘Therefore, on the one hand, a telephone service for which the consumer pays the 
rate contractually agreed with his telephone provider is permitted. It is clear that 
calls can also be completely free of charge for the consumer. The use of so-called 
business numbers for contract customers would also be permitted, provided that 
the rate charged to the consumer for a call to that number does not exceed the 
contractually agreed rate or, where pricing is not based on the contractually agreed 
rate, the calculated basic rate corresponding to that rate. On the other hand, the use 
of a service number giving rise to additional costs as a telephone number for 
contract customers would not be permitted.’ 
16 The abovementioned travaux préparatoires also state the following (p. 28): ‘The 
provision does not affect the right of traders to charge consumers a rate higher 
than the basic rate for contact made by other means, such as contact made by 
telephone with a view to concluding a contract or contact not related to a contract 
previously concluded, such as in relation to the opening hours of a branch, for 
example. However, in order to avoid misunderstandings, the trader should clearly 
specify, for example on his website, which number is for making contact in 
relation to a contract previously concluded and which number is for another 
purpose.’ [Or. 7] 
17 As far as can be seen, there is no national case-law on the application of 
Paragraph 14 of Chapter 2 of the Law on consumer protection. 
18 In June 2020, the government introduced a legislative proposal (HE 98/2020 vp) 
to amend, inter alia, Paragraph 14 of Chapter 2 of the Law on consumer protection 
and to repeal the provisions concerning the calculated basic rate. Pursuant to 
subparagraph 1 of the proposed paragraph, a trader must not use, for the purpose 
of making contact by telephone in relation to contracts for the sale of consumer 
goods previously concluded by him, a service for which the consumer is charged 
costs which exceed the costs of his contractually agreed rate. This corresponds to 
the first alternative of the currently applicable Paragraph 14(1). According to the 
government bill, the legislative amendment is to enter into force on 21 December 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11.11.2020 – CASE C-594/20 
 
6  
2022. This possible legislative amendment has no impact on the proceedings 
pending before the referring court. The proposed provision appears to allow 
traders to continue to use, for the purpose of making contact by telephone, 
telephone numbers other than those that are free of charge for consumers or 
standard geographic landlines or mobile telephone lines. 
19 Pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Chapter 2 of the Law on consumer protection 
(561/2008), a trader may be prohibited, if this is necessary for reasons of 
consumer protection, from continuing a practice contrary to the provisions of that 
Chapter or a practice contrary to provisions adopted on the basis of that Chapter, 
or from resuming such a practice or comparable practice. The prohibition must be 
reinforced by the threat of a penalty payment, unless this is not necessary for 
specific reasons. 
THE NEED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
20 The Market Court is called upon to rule on the question of whether a prohibition 
must be imposed owing to a practice that is unlawful pursuant to Paragraph 14 of 
Chapter 2 of the Law on consumer protection. A trader may be prohibited from 
continuing or resuming the unlawful practice even if that practice has already 
ceased. 
21 In the event of a prohibition, the prohibited practice must be specified. 
Paragraph 14 of Chapter 2 of the Law on consumer protection and its travaux 
préparatoires appear to contradict, as regards the provision of several telephone 
numbers and the amount of costs incurred by a consumer when making contact in 
relation to a contract, [Or. 8] Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU and the relevant 
case-law of the Court of Justice. This possible contradiction gives cause to request 
a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of that provision. 
22 The first question referred concerns whether, in accordance with Article 21 of 
Directive 2011/83/EU, a trader may, in certain circumstances and in a specific 
manner, provide consumers with both a telephone number subject to the basic rate 
and a service number subject to a rate exceeding the basic rate, for the purpose of, 
for example, using the telephone number subject to the basic rate for matters 
relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 21 of that directive and the 
service number subject to a rate exceeding the basic rate for other matters, such as 
those preceding the conclusion of a contract, which are not covered by that 
provision. 
23 The interpretation given by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Starman 
(C-332/17, […]) could mean in practice that a trader could not, under any 
circumstances or in any way, provide a telephone number subject to a rate 
exceeding the basic rate in addition to the telephone number subject to the basic 
rate, because a telephone number subject to a rate exceeding the basic rate could 
lead to situations in which consumers might have to use that number for matters 
relating to a contract previously concluded, within the meaning of Article 21, and 
MIGAME OY 
 
7 
therefore have to pay charges in excess of the basic rate for that telephone call. An 
extremely strict interpretation of that provision could mean that traders could use 
or publish, for example in telephone directories or on their websites, only 
freephone numbers or standard geographic fixed or mobile numbers for 
consumers. If the provision of several telephone numbers is compatible with 
Article 21, the Court of Justice should specify the conditions for this. In the 
present case, the question that arises in particular is whether the factors of, for 
example, whether it is easy to find the telephone number subject to the basic rate, 
whether the intended purpose of the telephone numbers is specified with sufficient 
clarity and whether there are significant differences in the availability or level of 
customer service are relevant to the assessment. 
24 The second question referred concerns whether, in the light of paragraphs 27, 29 
and 32 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in [Or. 9] Zentrale zur Bekämpfung 
unlauterer Wettbewerb Frankfurt am Main (C-568/15, […]), Article 21 of the 
Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of being contacted 
by telephone in relation to a contract previously concluded – or, depending on the 
answer to the first question referred, possibly for any other purpose also – a trader 
may not provide telephone numbers other than standard geographic landlines or 
mobile telephone lines or numbers that are free of charge for consumers. The 
reason for this is that a call relating to a contractual matter made to a different 
telephone number could entail additional costs for the consumer if the consumer’s 
telephone contract was concluded as a package deal that includes, for a fixed 
monthly price, an unlimited or limited number of calls to such standard numbers 
but not to other numbers. Since the trader cannot know the cost incurred by each 
consumer when calling such standard numbers, the trader would not be able to 
offer other telephone numbers, because this would give rise to additional costs for 
certain consumers. It would be contrary to that interpretation if the trader could 
provide a telephone number for the use of which the consumer would incur costs 
corresponding, for example, to the calculated basic rate provided for in 
Paragraph 14 of Chapter 2 of the Law on consumer protection or to the 
contractually agreed rate if the costs incurred on the basis of the agreed rate were 
higher than the costs actually incurred when calling a standard number. However, 
the judgment cited does not expressly take a position on what it means for the 
concept of ‘basic rate’ if a consumer uses a telephone package at a fixed price and 
the conditions of that package allow him to call only certain telephone numbers 
without incurring additional charges. 
25 In the light of the foregoing, the decision in the proceedings pending before the 
referring court requires an interpretation of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU. It 
is therefore necessary to refer this case to the Court of Justice for a preliminary 
ruling. [Or. 10] 
QUESTIONS REFERRED 
26 […] 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 11.11.2020 – CASE C-594/20 
 
8  
1. Is the first paragraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on 
consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and 
Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of 
the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as 
precluding a trader from providing, in addition to a telephone number 
charged at no more than the basic rate, a telephone number which the 
consumer may use for matters relating to a contract previously 
concluded and for the use of which a price exceeding the basic rate is 
charged, and, furthermore, in the event that the provision of a 
telephone number that charges a rate exceeding the basic rate is 
deemed to be compatible with Article 21 in certain circumstances, are 
the factors of, for example, whether it is easy to find the telephone 
number subject to the basic rate, whether the intended purpose of the 
telephone numbers is specified with sufficient clarity and whether 
there are significant differences in the availability or level of customer 
service relevant to the assessment? 
2. Must the concept of ‘basic rate’ under Article 21 of Directive 
2011/83/EU be interpreted as meaning that a trader may provide, as a 
customer service number for matters relating to a contract concluded 
previously, only a standard geographic landline or mobile telephone 
line or a number that is free of charge for consumers, and, furthermore, 
in the event that the trader is permitted to provide another telephone 
number, what is the maximum amount that a consumer can be charged 
for the use of that telephone number if he has concluded a telephone 
contract as a package deal? [Or. 11] 
27 […] 
28 […] 
[…]