Almost all loan agreements can be revoked - European Court of Justice

It does not change the fact that the benefits received must be balanced against each other.
The borrower must therefore pay interest on the loan amount to the bank, and the bank must pay interest on the repayment services received.

There is also the difference with the cutoff date in 2014 regarding the calculation.
But the idea that you get all the interest back flat-rate and would not have to pay anything for the loan granted is nonsense.

Your opinion... nothing more, nothing less.

Say that to the WBS. This law firm claims exactly the opposite

In case of revocation, aren't the benefits granted to each other always to be refunded?

Your opinion... nothing more, nothing less.

Indeed, and it just so happens to coincide with the principles established by the BGH regarding the revocation of real estate loans. But feel free to tell me about your fantastic successes with this law firm that will turn the entire case law upside down.

Just checked the photovoltaic loan from January 2020 and there is also the reference to §492, and also for another loan within the last 14 days again the reference to §492. Both different institutions. Unfortunately, there is nothing to be read about this anywhere for the real estate loan.

Indeed, and it happens to be identical with the principles of revocation for real estate loans established by the BGH.

But you’re welcome to tell me about your fantastic successes with this law firm that will turn the entire case law upside down.

Well, I did not rely on the law firm...
Apart from that, the CJEU can certainly overrule the BGH.
And let’s not kid ourselves, even in the highest instance, rulings from lower courts are often overturned. And there is always some lawyer who thinks that...

If I were affected, I would dare to try. Why not? Unfortunately, you have to be careful. Many legal expenses insurances only cover the factual instances.

Yes, the case law in Germany sometimes produces strange results, especially under the influence of the [EuGH].

In my previous comment, I only addressed the existing handling of a loan revocation. This handling is not affected by the current ruling of the [EuGH].

Only the question of whether a revocation is possible was raised by the decision. Incidentally, the successful lawyer who initiated the appeal does not even know whether his client can now successfully revoke the contract. We will now have to await the judgment of the regional court and whether it will be appealed to the next higher court, which is likely to be the case.

But it is true that this ruling at least now opens up a certain scope for negotiation for borrowers that was not there before and may possibly no longer exist after the ruling is published.