The Hungarian competition authority, known as GVH, has reaffirmed that the billing practices of MVM Next Energiakereskedelmi Zrt. do not constitute a commercial practice. Consequently, the GVH justifiably terminated the competition supervision procedure regarding the so-called 'rezsibox' last November.

In the autumn of 2023, the GVH received a complaint concerning MVM Next's billing practices related to universal gas services. Investigators examined the complaint, requested data from both the complainant and the company, and evaluated the relevant facts. Based on this information, the GVH concluded that the conditions for initiating a competition supervision procedure were not met.

After the closure of the complaint, the complainant exercised their right to legal remedy and appealed to the Budapest Metropolitan Court, requesting the annulment of the GVH's decision and the initiation of a competition supervision procedure. The court upheld the complainant's request and ordered the GVH to conduct a competition supervision procedure.

In the procedure initiated on July 5, 2024, the GVH examined whether the savings displayed in the 'rezsibox' on bills issued by MVM Next for gas and electricity services since August 2022 violated the prohibition of unfair commercial practices.

In early November 2024, the GVH concluded that the information presented in the 'rezsibox' is mandated by law, primarily aimed at informing consumers about government measures related to utility cost reductions. The GVH determined that the display of this information does not qualify as a commercial practice, as MVM Next lacks independent decision-making authority. Therefore, the GVH terminated the competition supervision procedure.

The complainant again rejected this decision and sought a review from the GVH's Competition Council. The Council re-evaluated the details of the case and the relevant legal framework, ultimately upholding the GVH's decision to terminate the competition supervision procedure from November 2024. The Council concluded that the GVH lacked jurisdiction to investigate the contested billing practice, as it did not fall under the definition of unfair commercial practices as outlined in the relevant law.