”
Core holding: Start of the minimum contract term
\n\n
The Federal Court of Justice has ruled that the contractually agreed minimum contract term in a contract for telecommunications services generally begins upon conclusion of the contract, and not only at the time when a fiber-optic connection is technically activated. Decisive is therefore the time at which the parties validly concluded the contract.
\n
Classification of the subject matter of the dispute
\n
Contractual constellation in the telecommunications sector
\n\n
The subject of the judicial dispute was a contract concerning the provision of telecommunications services in connection with a fiber-optic connection. In such constellations, it is not uncommon for there to be a period between conclusion of the agreement and the actual usability of the connection during which expansion and activation measures are implemented.
\n
Point of conflict: Start of term where services are provided later
\n\n
At the center was the question whether a minimum contract term begins to run only when the connection is actually activated, or already upon conclusion of the contract. Closely related to this is the distinction between the time of contractual commitment and the acts of actual performance, which occur only at a later date.
\n
Legal assessment by the Federal Court of Justice
\n
Linking to the time of contract conclusion
\n\n
According to the decision of the Federal Court of Justice, the conclusion of the contract is decisive for the start of the minimum contract term. The minimum contract term is thus tied to the time at which the contractual commitment is established. A later activation of the fiber-optic connection generally does not shift the start of the term.
\n
Distinction from technical activation
\n\n
In the court’s assessment, the technical activation of the connection as a rule does not constitute an independent reference point for the running of the minimum contract term. The activation concerns the performance of the contract, but not the formation of the contractual commitment as such.
\n
Effects of the decision on contract drafting and contract performance
\n
Relevance for providers and contractual partners
\n\n
The decision makes clear that contractual minimum terms in corresponding telecommunications contracts are not automatically linked to the time of first usability. This increases the importance of clearly determining the time of contract conclusion as well as the service dates provided for in the contract.
\n
Significance for temporal performance obligations
\n\n
Insofar as there is a temporal gap between contract conclusion and the provision of services, the agreed minimum contract term generally remains unaffected by this under the decision. The question of which rights and obligations arise from delays in the actual provision is to be distinguished from this and is governed by the respective contractual and statutory provisions.
\n
Source
\n\n
The foregoing statements are based on reporting on the decision of the Federal Court of Justice: BGH, judgment of 08/01/2026, docket no. III ZR 825, published, inter alia, at: https://urteile.news/BGH_III-ZR-825_Mindestvertragslaufzeit-beginnt-ab-Vertragsschluss-und-nicht-erst-ab-Freischaltung-des-Glasfaseranschlusses~N35685.
\n
Conclusion: Points of reference for contractual assessment
\n\n
The decision may provide occasion to legally classify the time of contract conclusion, provisions on the provisioning phase, and the design of term and binding clauses in telecommunications and connection contracts. Those who require clarification in this regard will find further information at MTR Legal on legal advice in contract law.
“
