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

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