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

Well, the main thing is to tackle it. You could miss a bargain.

Not nice either to find a new financing directly in times of Corona.

I’d say: the economy, which will anyway adapt to the Greeks in our country (you have to be realistic), is going even further down.
But that’s another matter and has nothing to do with his rights.

... and in the end the bank always wins.

... or the lawyers. At least it’s a good marketing tool to bait the “greed-eats-brain-people” in times of unrest.
I say: you just didn’t hear the shot. Sorry! This is somehow scavenging on the dead of the economy: vulture assholes want to get a piece too. Are they all anarchists here, or what?

In that respect, I am curious to see who here will be the first to come out with their story.

Hi,

I can only briefly tell my story from 5 years ago so you can have some idea of how it goes. Please refrain from fundamental moral discussions or judgments; I just want to share the facts with you.

I had my loan contracts checked for free by a specialist lawyer. One was identified with a faulty clause, and they immediately told me the minimum costs in case of failure and also in case of success. At least around €2000, and at most there would be an additional xx % of my "savings."
That was too expensive for me, so I approached my bank on my own. The answer came promptly, basically "the clause is correct; if I see it differently, I should contact the legal department."
Then I gave them a few more details and reminded them of court cases that were conducted with the mentioned lawyer and in which the bank had "lost." This led to a personal invitation.
At this point, I want to mention that you should not walk into something like this completely blindly and without help; either the appointment ends quickly, or from here on, things get serious.
The bank pulled out all the stops: my advisor, legal department, real estate department head, and a member of the board.
First, of course, everything was denied again; the clause was correct. Then they tried on an emotional level, etc. They were all very well prepared, and you could tell they certainly had court experience. When I stuck to my facts, they became more unfriendly and then came back with hard facts in turn, if my theory about the faulty clause were correct. To cut a long story short, they told me that if I continued from this point and did not go home with my head down, the entire outstanding debt (loan duration was only 5 years) would become due immediately!
Let’s be honest, it's more than difficult to find a bank for secondary ranking, and no one just has that kind of money lying around; banks know that, of course. I was accordingly prepared for this situation and had a promised financing for the outstanding debt, so I said, "No problem, to which account should I transfer the outstanding debt? Then we end this here; I also need this in writing from you!" That really hit home, it was not a bluff on my part. Then there was some further sparring, and the appointment was over after an hour. The bank said they wanted to review everything internally and would get back to me.
Three days later, the answer came: the clause is not wrong, but they would offer me a reduction in interest from 3.5% to 3.4%.
I then made a proposal with a deadline. Of course, this was much cheaper for me, but with another bank, you could have gotten even more; however, I still wanted to give them the chance not to come out of this as a total "loser." They took that chance and agreed two hours before the deadline.
-> Increase in the monthly payment and reduction of the effective interest rate to 1.9%.
And yes, the bank still does business with me today.
As mentioned at the beginning, spare me from right or wrong; the only reason that moved me was the fact that "if the bank had a chance the other way around, it would not hesitate."

So it’s not as simple as it is portrayed in the media. Also, paying a good lawyer is not enough because without financing from another bank, it usually only comes down to a settlement. Whether it’s worth it considering the costs incurred is questionable. The greatest savings come from very old contracts, which, however, should already be close to or beyond the 10-year limit.

Thank you for the detailed experience report!

the fact "if the bank had an opportunity the other way around, it would not hesitate either".

And anyone who doubts this should study hundreds of reports on such procedures in the press.

Hi, I can only briefly share my story from 5 years ago so you can roughly imagine how things work. Please refrain from a fundamental moral discussion or judgment; I just want to share the facts with you. I had my loan contracts checked for free by a specialist lawyer. One was identified with a wrong clause, and I was immediately told the minimum costs in case of failure and also those in case of success. At least it was around €2000 and at most an additional xx% of my "savings." That was too expensive for me, and I contacted my bank on my own initiative. The answer came promptly, basically saying, "The clause is correct; if I see it differently, I should contact the legal department." I then gave them a few more details and reminded them of court cases that took place with the said lawyer and that the bank had "lost." This led to a personal invitation. At this point, I want to mention that one should not walk into something like this blindly and without help; either the appointment ends quickly, or from here on it gets serious. The bank went all out: my advisor, legal department, head of real estate department, and a member of the board. At first, of course, everything was denied again; the clause was correct, then they tried on the emotional level, etc. They were all very well prepared, and you could tell they probably already had court experience. When I stuck to my facts, they became more unfriendly and then came at me with hard facts if my theory of the wrong clause were correct. In short, they told me that if I continued from this point on and did not go home with my head down, the entire remaining debt (the loan had only been running for 5 years) would become due! Let's be honest, it is more than difficult to find a bank for the second lien, and no one has that kind of money lying around; banks know that, of course. I was correspondingly prepared for this situation and had a promised financing of the remaining debt, so "no problem, to which account should I have the remaining debt transferred? Then we will end this right here; besides, I need this from you in writing now!" That really hit home and was not a bluff on my part. Then there was some more banter, and the appointment was over after an hour. The bank wanted to review everything internally and would get back to me. Three days later, I got the answer that the clause was not wrong but that they would accommodate me with an interest rate reduction from 3.5% to 3.4%. I then made a proposal with a deadline. Of course, that was significantly cheaper for me, but with another bank, I could have gotten even more; nevertheless, I wanted to give them the chance not to come out of this as a total "loser." They then took that chance and agreed 2 hours before the deadline. -> Increase of the monthly rate and reduction of the effective interest rate to 1.9%. And yes, the bank still does business with me today. As I mentioned at the beginning, spare me the right or wrong; the only reason that moved me was the fact that "if the bank had a chance the other way around, it wouldn't hesitate either." So it's not as simple as the media makes it out to be. It is also not enough to pay a good lawyer because without financing at another bank, it usually only results in a settlement. Whether it is still worth it given the costs incurred is questionable. The biggest savings are with the oldest possible contracts, which, however, should already be close to or beyond the 10-year limit anyway.

I just have to make a judgment here. I think you did exactly the right thing. They tried to take advantage of you in every way possible, despite full knowledge of the legal situation. Therefore, I have absolutely no concerns about your approach.

They tried to take advantage of you by all means despite being fully aware of the legal situation. Therefore, I have absolutely no concerns regarding your approach.

To be honest, the question is: Did the cancellation policy have any impact on the decision to enter into a loan agreement at a market-standard interest rate in the past? No, it did not. Therefore, I hope that the impact on the banks is correspondingly low. In this case, the customers are trying to rip off the banks - woe betide if a bank did that. Then the outcry would be huge.