THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE HAS RULED: MILLIONS OF LOAN AGREEMENTS REVOCABLE

In its judg­ment of Septem­ber 9, 2021, the European Court of Justice ruled that al­most every loan agree­ment is re­voc­able even years after it was con­cluded due to in­suf­fi­cient man­dat­ory dis­clos­ures. The CJEU thus fol­lowed the view that in­suf­fi­cient in­form­a­tion was provided in many private loan agree­ments. This ex­er­cise of the so-​called “per­petual right of re­voc­a­tion” has the con­sequence that both the loan agree­ment and the ac­tual pur­chase agree­ment are re­versed and the con­sumer re­ceives his money back in re­turn for the re­turn of the ob­ject of purchase.

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!

FAR-REACHING IMPLICATIONS, NOT ONLY FOR CAR LOAN AGREEMENTS

In gen­eral, it can be said that the CJEU’s de­cision could al­low con­sumers to exit a fin­an­cing agree­ment early and thus gain an im­mense fin­an­cial ad­vant­age. The banks are now threatened with a huge wave of re­voc­a­tions, not only for car loans, but in prin­ciple for any fin­anced con­sumer goods.

Al­though the cases un­der­ly­ing the re­fer­ral or­ders are ac­tu­ally pur­chases of vehicles af­fected by the emis­sions scan­dal that were fin­anced via Volk­swa­gen Bank GmbH, the CJEU re­fer­ral af­fects any fin­anced pur­chase, no mat­ter how large (home theater sys­tem, wash­ing ma­chine) or small (cell phone) it may be.

Con­sumers should there­fore find out now what a pos­sible course of ac­tion might look like in their spe­cific case.

FAULTY WORDING: ALMOST ALL CONSUMER LOAN AGREEMENTS AFFECTED

The word­ing used by Volk­swa­gen Bank GmbH in its loan agree­ments can be found in vari­ous for­mu­la­tions in al­most every con­sumer loan agree­ment con­cluded in Ger­many between June 11, 2010 and today.

With the de­cision of the Ravens­burg Re­gional Court to sub­mit the for­mu­la­tions used to the CJEU for re­view, banks are now fa­cing a re­newed wave of re­voc­a­tions. As re­cently as Novem­ber 2019, a rul­ing by the Ger­man Fed­eral Su­preme Court (BGH) made it look, at least in part, as if “late” re­voc­a­tions could be aver­ted with the legal ar­gu­ment of for­feit­ure or ab­use of the right of revocation.

PREVIOUS RULINGS OF THE BGH: CONSUMER UNFRIENDLY

Spe­cific­ally, on Novem­ber 5, 2019, the Fed­eral Court of Justice (BGH) had re­jec­ted the ap­peals of two car buy­ers and ruled that con­sumers can­not re­voke their car loans years after the con­clu­sion of the con­tract (rul­ing of Novem­ber 5, 2019, XI ZR 650/18 and XI ZR 11/19). Al­though this rul­ing only re­ferred to the con­tract forms ex­amined in de­tail (BMW Bank, Ford Bank), it was nev­er­the­less a deeply consumer-​unfriendly rul­ing and weakened the legal po­s­i­tion of consumers.

As part of its decision-​making pro­cess, the CJEU, which is con­sidered to be consumer-​friendly, has now also ad­dressed the BGH case law and provided legal cer­tainty. With the ECJ’s de­cision, it is now clear that the BGH ruled con­trary to European re­quire­ments last year. Mil­lions of con­sumers could then be­ne­fit massively fin­an­cially from a consumer-​friendly de­cision by re­vok­ing their loan agreements.

PERPETUAL RIGHT OF REVOCATION: THE UNLIMITED RIGHT OF REVOCATION FOR CONSUMERS

If, in the case of con­tracts con­cluded after June 11, 2010, the fin­an­cing bank has used in­cor­rect re­voc­a­tion in­form­a­tion or has omit­ted man­dat­ory in­form­a­tion re­quired by law, (car) buy­ers can still re­voke and re­verse the con­tract after the 14-​day re­voc­a­tion period has ex­pired, even after years! The con­sumer is then en­titled to the so-​called “per­petual right of with­drawal”, be­cause the period had never be­gun to run.

In par­tic­u­lar, many con­sumers fin­ance the pur­chase of a vehicle through a car loan. Very of­ten, the con­veni­ent of­fer of the car man­u­fac­turer to handle the fin­an­cing dir­ectly through the in-​house bank is used. But un­like most other con­sumer loans, this adds a spe­cial fea­ture to the car loan: the selling car deal­er­ship be­comes the in­ter­me­di­ary for the loan, be­cause it pre­pares the con­tract, uses the forms provided by the bank for this pur­pose, and ul­ti­mately con­cludes it. Through this in­volve­ment of the seller, a loan re­voc­a­tion then also has the ef­fect that the car buyer is no longer bound to the vehicle to be financed.

Re­vok­ing the loan thus of­fers the chance to get rid not only of the car fin­an­cing alone, but also of the car it­self. In this case, the vehicle goes to the bank, fur­ther in­stall­ment pay­ments by the bor­rower no longer ap­ply, the bank must re­fund all in­stall­ments already paid and any spe­cial pay­ments, and no com­pens­a­tion for use must be paid. How­ever, the bank re­tains the con­trac­tu­ally agreed interest.

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