EUGH STRENGTHENS CONSUMER RIGHTS: “REVOCATION JOKER” FOR MILLIONS OF CONSUMER CREDIT AGREEMENTS

In its rul­ing of Septem­ber 9, 2021, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) found that many con­sumer loan agree­ments can still be re­voked years later (with the ex­cep­tion of real es­tate loan agree­ments). The reason for this is that the clauses used by Ger­man banks in loan agree­ments are of­ten faulty. The Lux­em­bourg judges cri­ti­cized above all the in­ac­cur­ate in­form­a­tion or com­pletely in­ad­equate in­form­a­tion in the loan agree­ments. For ex­ample, the ref­er­ence to the ab­stract amount of the de­fault in­terest rate was not suf­fi­cient; in­stead, the banks al­ways had to spe­cify a con­crete in­terest rate at the time the con­tract was con­cluded. The mere ref­er­ence “The an­nual de­fault in­terest rate is 5 per­cent­age points above the re­spect­ive prime rate.” (or sim­ilar) is there­fore not sufficient.

In ad­di­tion, the CJEU stated that the cal­cu­la­tion method of a com­pens­a­tion due in the event of early re­pay­ment (early re­pay­ment pen­alty) must also be in­dic­ated in an “eas­ily com­pre­hens­ible man­ner” for the av­er­age con­sumer, which was also not the case in the pro­ceed­ings there. This also con­sti­tuted a reason for re­vok­ing con­sumer credit agree­ments. In the vari­ous pro­ceed­ings against the banks of the car man­u­fac­tur­ers Volk­swa­gen, Škoda and BMW, the judges from Lux­em­bourg held that the right of re­voc­a­tion could still be ex­er­cised years later, as these same banks had only in­ad­equately in­formed con­sumers about the legal situ­ation when the loan agree­ments were con­cluded (Cases C-33/20, C-155/20 and C-187/20). The in­cor­rect or, in some cases, non-​existent in­form­a­tion had the con­sequence that the time limit within which the re­voc­a­tion must be de­clared in prin­ciple never began to run. The con­sequence is a quasi “per­petual right of with­drawal” in fa­vor of the consumer.

In a ground­break­ing move, the CJEU has also fi­nally cla­ri­fied the ques­tion of whether such a right of with­drawal can be for­feited by the con­sumer. Banks of­ten countered con­sumers’ claims by say­ing that it would be dis­loyal to in­voke the right of with­drawal after the con­tract had of­ten been in force for many years. The claim was there­fore for­feited. The CJEU has now clearly re­jec­ted this ar­gu­ment. Ac­cord­ing to the CJEU, a bank that has pre­vi­ously failed to prop­erly in­form the con­sumer is pre­cluded from in­vok­ing the de­fense of forfeiture.

The rul­ing thus massively strengthens con­sumer rights overall.

The CJEU’s de­cision now en­ables con­sumers to with­draw from fin­an­cing and thus po­ten­tially gain an im­mense fin­an­cial ad­vant­age. This is be­cause re­voc­a­tion means that the con­tracts in ques­tion are re­versed, so that the down pay­ment and loan in­stall­ments must be re­fun­ded. In re­turn, con­sumers must re­turn the ser­vice re­ceived, i.e. the vehicle in the case of vehicle loan agreements.

As a res­ult of the de­cision, it stands to reason that banks will now have to reckon with a huge wave of re­voc­a­tions. This is likely to af­fect not only car loan agree­ments, but rather all forms of con­sumer credit agreements.

Us­ing the ex­ample of a car loan, it im­me­di­ately be­comes clear the enorm­ous op­por­tun­ity this of­fers con­sumers: It is noth­ing less than the pos­sib­il­ity of be­ing able to re­turn their vehicle without loss, ir­re­spect­ive of the diesel scan­dal, if the pur­chase was fin­anced via a loan!

With its rul­ing, the CJEU went against the case law of the Fed­eral Court of Justice (BGH), which in the spe­cific case had re­jec­ted the ap­peals of two car buy­ers as re­cently as Novem­ber 2019 and ruled that con­sumers can­not re­voke their car loans years after the con­tract was con­cluded – a deeply consumer-​unfriendly rul­ing that sig­ni­fic­antly weakened the legal po­s­i­tion of con­sumers. This has now been re­vised by the ECJ.

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY AND HAVE YOUR LOAN AGREEMENT CHECKED FOR REVOCABILITY!

Are you think­ing of with­draw­ing from your car loan agree­ment? Let your­self be ad­vised gladly at any time free of charge and coun­try widely by at­tor­ney Jen­nifer Breßler. We will re­view your con­tract free of charge and without ob­lig­a­tion. Take your chance!

How to reach us

Schirp & Part­ner Recht­san­wälte mbB
Leipzi­ger Platz 9
10117 Ber­lin, Germany

Phone: +49 (0)30 – 327 617 0
Fax: +49 (0)30 – 327 617 17
E-​Mail: mail@​schirp.​com

Legal Advisory Label

Please take note that we can not answer consultatively here. If you happen to request that anyways, you may give us full power of attorney. For that, simply download this form, sign it and return it to us.

News

POC Growth 1: AAA-Informationen

Lesen Sie die Ab­stim­mung­sem­p­fehlun­gen des Ak­tions­bundes Akt­iver An­leger­s­chutz e.V. zu den Beschlussan­trä­gen der Geschäfts­führung und neh­men Sie bitte an der Ver­sammlung per­sön­lich teil, oder lassen Ihre In­teressen durch den AAA ver­tre­ten. Quelle: Aktionsbund

Rückforderung der Ausschüttungen jetzt auch beim MCE Fonds 08

Nun er­wis­cht es auch die An­leger des MCE Fonds 08: In­solv­en­zver­wal­ter Prof. Dr. Ger­rit Hölzle aus der Kan­zlei Görg lässt über die von ihm beau­ftragte Kan­zlei Lud­wig Wöhren Schewtschenko von den An­legern Aus­schüt­tun­gen zurück­fordern. Zehn Prozent der dam­als geleisteten Ein­lage will er von den An­legern haben. Quelle: Aktionsbund

White Owl Capital (WOC) Solarfonds – Initiatoren verdienen auf Kosten der Anleger

Bisher hat­ten wir diese Beteili­gun­gen man­gels Nachfrage bei un­seren Mit­gliedern nicht näher unter die Lupe gen­om­men. Quelle: Aktionsbund

Lichtblick für die Leonidas-Anleger?

Die HTB-​Gruppe aus Bre­men, als Fonds-​Initiator und Fonds­ver­wal­ter und vor al­lem für ihre Zweitmarkt-​Fonds bekannt, ist durch Über­nahme von Gesell­schaftsanteilen in die Geschäfts­führung und vor al­lem die Anleger-​Betreuung der Leonidas-​Gruppe eingestie­gen. Hier tobte in den let­zten Mon­aten ein Kampf der ehem­als ge­mein­samen Un­ternehmens­gründer Max-​Robert Hug und Antje Gries­eler. Die An­leger der Windpark- und Solar-​Fonds beklagen […]

Premium savings contracts: BGH again strengthens consumer rights

Ac­cord­ing to a rul­ing by the Fed­eral Court of Justice on Oc­to­ber 6, 2021, savers who have con­cluded premium sav­ings con­tracts can now de­mand money back. This is how the judges in Karls­ruhe ruled on the first model de­clar­at­ory ac­tion brought by con­sumer pro­tec­tion groups con­cern­ing un­law­ful clauses on vari­able in­terest rates in many older premium […]

CJEU strengthens consumer rights: “Revocation joker” for millions of consumer credit agreements

The CJEU found that many con­sumer loan agree­ments can still be re­voked years later.

All Announcements »

Copyright © Schirp & Partner Solicitors | Legal Notice | Privacy Statement
Zum Seitenanfang