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

WIRECARD: MUNICH REGIONAL COURT INITIATES MODEL PROCEEDINGS

The de­cision of the Mu­nich I Re­gional Court was pub­lished in the Fed­eral Gaz­ette on March 16, 2022.

Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office I brings charges against ex-​Wirecard CEO

This has now been con­firmed by the pub­lic prosecutor’s of­fice in a press release.

Einladung zum Webinar für Anleger – Vermögensarreste durch die Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg bei den Deutsche Lichtmiete

Am 3. März 2022 hat die Staat­san­waltschaft Olden­burg über das Ver­mö­gen zahlreicher Deutsche Licht­mi­ete Gesell­schaften Ver­mö­gensar­reste ver­hängt und alle An­leger der be­t­ro­f­fenen Gesell­schaften aufge­fordert, sich bei der Staat­san­waltschaft Olden­burg unter dem Ak­ten­zeichen 11B AR 100359/21 als so­genan­nte Tatver­let­zte zu melden und mitzuteilen, ob und in welcher Höhe sie einen An­s­pruch auf Er­satz gel­tend machen. Die […]

Aktionsbund Leistungsbilanz 2015

Der Ak­tions­bund Akt­iver An­leger­s­chutz e.V. ist seit 13 Jahren im An­leger­s­chutz un­ter­wegs. Was der AAA in dieser Zeit un­ter­nom­men und er­reicht hat, ist nun er­st­mals in einer Leis­tungs­b­il­anz dok­u­mentiert! Quelle: Aktionsbund

AAA gegen XI. BGH-​Senat – Brief an die Präsidentin des BGH

Vor et­was mehr als einem Jahr hat der XI. Zivilsenat des BGH mit einer über­ras­chenden Entscheidung die Recht­s­prechung der let­zten Jahrzehnte zur Prospek­thaf­tung bei geschlossenen Fonds auf den Kopf ges­tellt und damit dem An­leger­s­chutz einen bru­talen Sch­lag ver­setzt. Seit­dem hat er mit weit­eren Entscheidun­gun­gen mehrmals nachgetre­ten. Zun­ehmend mehr Land- und Ober­landes­gerichte fol­gen der Auffas­sung des […]

Direktinvestments bei der Deutsche Lichtmiete

Bei der Deutsche Licht­mi­ete er­mit­telt die Staat­san­waltschaft, bei ver­schiedenen ihrer Gesell­schaften wurde das vorläufige In­solv­en­zver­fahren er­öffnet. Die An­leger er­hal­ten jetzt An­ge­bote, sich kos­ten­pf­lichtig bei der An­mel­dung von For­der­ungen ver­tre­ten zu lassen. Außer­dem sol­len sie schon mal ein Prozent ihrer An­lage­summe an die THD Treuhand­de­pot GmbH zah­len, damit diese für sie tätig wird. Die An­leger haben […]

All Announcements »

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