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 […]
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
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.
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
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
Bisher hatten wir diese Beteiligungen mangels Nachfrage bei unseren Mitgliedern nicht näher unter die Lupe genommen. Quelle: Aktionsbund
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 […]
The CJEU found that many consumer loan agreements can still be revoked years later.