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

Just google Sparkasse Kündigung Prämiensparen. They had no scruples at all and fought it all the way through the courts.

Yes, and now?

It mainly concerns savings contracts that did not have a fixed term agreed upon but rather a premium scale. And the point of contention was whether the savings banks now have the right, after all promised premiums have been paid—in most cases after 15 years. And the court ruling was that the savings banks of course have to fully pay the promised premium scale, but thereafter have the right to terminate the contract.

One can certainly have different opinions. But if you have a contract without an agreed term, my understanding is that both sides can terminate the contract, especially when all promised benefits have been fulfilled.
It’s not as if they had agreed the contract runs for 30 years and after 10 say, oh, actually not.

Regardless of the fact that from my point of view it is a differently situated case, because it’s not about the savings banks terminating a contract due to a formal defect.
How many of those who now want to exploit this [EuGH ruling], how many of them had such a savings contract? Probably very few.
But yes, here we go again with the morality of the industry.... sure, with that you can argue anything.
That works everywhere, car manufacturers all cheat, pharma is mafia anyway, the state is in cahoots with the companies, so undeclared work and a bit of tax evasion aren’t a big deal (except with Hoeneß, of course, he’s a bad guy.) Craftsmen all botch jobs, electronics manufacturers deliberately build in components that are programmed to fail... who wants to continue?

I personally don’t care whether someone takes advantage of it. It’s also not about whether it’s against one or all banks or any other industry.
I just think sometimes one should take a step back and consider what one is doing. Just for oneself. It’s not about trying to negotiate well or anything like that.
In the past, they said a handshake counts. And if I promised the other party that I would stick to the agreement, then I do. And I don’t justify it by saying maybe someone else didn’t do it or whatever.
But that’s simply my personal attitude.

Nanana, don’t exaggerate. I have a very good and fair relationship with my car workshop. Everyone here acts fairly. During my renovation, I gave EVERY employee here a 50€ tip because they were incredibly hardworking. Of course, there are invoices for that. The other craftsmen also worked well and invoiced properly. I always paid upon receipt of the invoice.
I also pay my hairdresser 5€ more than others in the area because he does a good job. Fair money for fair services.
But the example with the ruling in the area of [Sparkassen] is basically good. Because even in the current case, there is a ruling. From the highest court. One can certainly use it as a guideline. Banks have not acted transparently enough. That is why cancellation is still possible. That’s just how it is now. The consumer has the right to it.

And no, it was not the phone call. It would have been wonderful if, as I have suggested several times, the responsible caseworker had actually spoken with me. But no one considered that necessary. And the really nice lady at the service hotline unfortunately could not help with the matter.
The same insurance, by the way, also tried to pull a fast one on my father as an extremely long-standing customer with a storm damage claim.
Companies aim for profits. That’s just the way it is. And if in doubt, also at the expense of customers. There is no morality there either.

, since you usually discuss and argue quite objectively here ... by the way, after your description of the insurance case, I would have canceled all insurances as well.
Nevertheless, because of the ruling, you mix completely different matters in one pot.

Because all of you who are now considering checking your contract texts because of this EU ruling ... did you really not feel informed about the revocation? Haven't you at least partly not even read the fine print because you said to yourselves, everything is clear and unambiguous?

And no, it was not the phone call.

You should, when replying to someone in the forum, at least specify or quote them. If you hadn’t mentioned the phone call, I wouldn’t have seen your answer after my post. Because...

Come on, don’t exaggerate. I have a very good and fair relationship with my car repair shop. Everyone here acts fairly. During my renovation, I gave EVERYONE working here a €50 tip because they were incredibly hardworking. Of course, there are invoices for that. The other craftsmen also worked well and invoiced properly. I always paid upon receipt of the invoice.

...I don’t see what role your car repair shop or your tipping behavior plays here.

I also pay my hairdresser €5 more than others in the area,

Banks have not acted transparently enough.

and on the topic of hairdressers: it may be that you see utmost transparency in your €19.90 haircut, but that definitely does not apply in combination with women’s haircut/hairdresser/transparency. Meaning: with my bank, I know what they "sold" me; with every hairdresser who would do my hair, I definitely don’t have that transparency. And no, it’s not because of my hair. Anyway: I don’t think anyone here will go as far as shown in the sensational video.

You should, when replying to someone in the forum, at least name them or quote them. If you hadn’t mentioned the phone call, I wouldn’t have seen the reply to my post in your post. Because...

...I don’t see what your car workshop has to do with this, or your tipping behavior.

And regarding the hairdresser topic: it may be that you see utmost transparency in your €19.90 haircut, but that definitely does not apply in combination with women’s haircuts/hairdressers/transparency. Meaning: with my bank I know what they “sold” me, but with any of the hairdressers who would do my hair, I definitely don’t have that transparency. And no, it’s not because of my hair.

Anyway: I don’t believe anyone here will go as far as shown in that sensational video.

With my behavior in other areas, I want to show that I am basically not a nasty contracting party who looks for the smallest flaw just to save a few euros. It’s about the fact that the guidelines from the executives (the service employees at the counter or hotline actually bear little blame for the business practices) in some industries clearly point in one direction: namely, to get out of it as cheaply as possible.
There are good posts here in the forum on other topics, such as disability insurance for example. And here in this topic, posts regarding Sparkasse.
Or well-interesting building savings contracts. Banks have tried to save in these areas as well, partly by loopholes.
As long as this continues, I would try everything legal to save costs as well. Because certainly I will not deal fairly with the contracting party if they would not do so either.

Regarding my behavior when signing: I wanted to finance the house, the conditions were within limits, the payment was uncomplicated. Then a bunch of papers came which I signed. End of story.
But it was “only” €230,000, of which €30k was variable. That was an amount I accepted absolutely carefree.
In any case, there was no advisor sitting there who explicitly pointed out any possibility of revocation.