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

Kaufangebote der VENQO AG

VENQO AG will An­legern “tox­is­che” Beteili­gun­gen ab­kaufen Dem AAA wird na­hezu täg­lich be­stätigt, dass ins­beson­dere An­leger, die bereits mit einer Kapit­alan­lage im sog. Grauen Kapit­al­markt Schiff­bruch erlit­ten haben, Ge­fahr laufen, ein wei­t­eres Mal über den Tisch gezo­gen zu wer­den. Clevere Be­trüger nutzen aus, dass die Hoffnung, einen Teil des bereits ver­loren ge­glaub­ten Kapit­als zurück­zuer­hal­ten, die […]

Hilfe für Fondsanleger kann auch schaden — Was Fondsanleger tun können, um sich vor unseriöser Beratung zu schützen

Der Ak­tions­bund Akt­iver An­leger­s­chutz nimmt häufig Kon­takt zu Fond­san­legern auf, um In­teressen zu bündeln und aus­reichend Voll­machten zur Ein­beru­fung von Gesell­schafterver­sammlungen zu sam­meln. Die Latte dafür hängt ziem­lich hoch, meist bei 20 % des Fond­skapit­als. Auf den Gesell­schafterver­sammlungen sol­len dann je nach Fonds en­tweder Beiräte in­stal­liert, Son­der­prü­fun­gen ver­an­lasst oder sogar die Geschäfts­führung aus­get­auscht wer­den. Sol­che Maßnahmen, […]

Dringender Aufklärungsbedarf bei den MAP Fonds von Illya Steiner

AAA prüft die Beteili­gung­s­port­folien der MAP Fonds von Ilya Steiner hinsicht­lich ihrer Wirtschaft­lich­keit Es fing ganz harm­los an. Eines un­serer Mit­glieder hatte uns im Früh­jahr 2022 ge­b­eten, ein­mal den MAP An­s­par Plan Fonds 3 der Un­ternehmens­gruppe von Dr. Il­lya Steiner aus Ham­burg et­was näher an­zuse­hen, weil er dort noch laufend Ein­zahlun­gen leisten würde. Er würde jetzt […]

Enorme Wertberichtigungen bei ThomasLloyd

ThomasLloyd CTI Hold­ing hat laut Jahresab­schluss 2020 mehr als 100 Mil­lionen Euro abges­chrieben. Die ThomasLloyd Cleantech In­fra­struc­ture Hold­ing GmbH (TL CTI Hold­ing GmbH) ist die Gesell­schaft der ThomasLloyd Group, über die die meisten In­vest­i­tionen getätigt wer­den sol­len. Die ThomasLloyd Fonds geben zu diesem Zweck das An­legerkapital an diese Gesell­schaft weiter. Der Jahresab­schluss 2020 hätte bis […]

Versäumnisurteil gegen zwei Unternehmen der Steiner-Gruppe

S + C Treuhand GmbH und Steiner + Com­pany GmbH & Co. KG lassen sich im Gericht­ster­min nicht ver­tre­ten. Ein An­leger, der sich über das Emis­sion­shaus Steiner direkt an einer Wohnan­lage in Dubai beteiligt hat, prozessiert ge­gen die S + C Treuhand GmbH, die Steiner + Com­pany GmbH & Co. KG und die En­gels & Völk­ers Re­sorts GmbH, weil die […]

Fehlerhafte Abstimmungsunterlagen bei ThomasLloyd

Nachdem der Ak­tions­bund Akt­iver An­leger­s­chutz e.V. die Ab­stim­mung zu über­höhten Pro­vi­sionen bean­stan­det hatte, erklärte ThomasLloyd ge­genüber nachfra­genden An­legern, die Ab­stim­mung­sun­ter­la­gen seien tat­säch­lich fehler­haft. Wir haben ver­gan­gene Woche darüber berichtet, dass An­leger des ThomasLloyd Fonds Zweite Cleantech In­frastruk­turgesell­schaft mbH & Co. KG ents­prechend den ak­tuel­len Ab­stim­mung­sun­ter­la­gen nicht nur die Geschäfts­führung und die Treuhän­derin entlasten, son­dern auch deut­lich über […]

All Announcements »

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