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

Because it doesn't fit at all. Or do you have 2% stated in your contract but 3% are being deducted?

It's also not the case with the revocation ... no more is deducted than agreed upon.

That is also not the case with the cancellation ... nothing is deducted that was not agreed upon

It was about the comparison with the diesel scandal. There, manipulation was done and consumption and emission values were faked that are not correct.
That is not transferable to the case at hand, what I wanted to say is that with the loan exactly what was promised was delivered, unlike with diesel.

With the diesel affair, the question is also which damage actually occurred. There has always been cheating with consumption. With both gasoline and diesel. How many percent of buyers really bought the car because of the emission values? The first real damage occurred when the resale value dropped after the scandal was exposed. And suddenly EVERYONE bought the car because it was supposedly so environmentally friendly. It's ridiculous. The plaintiffs smelled money and took the chance. I say, it's OK.

My point is that the guidelines from the boards (the service employees at the counter or in the hotline are rather not to blame for the business practices) show a clear direction in some industries.

And you know the guidelines?
We must not deceive ourselves. Every company wants to make a profit. And wherever sales are involved, there will be some kind of guidelines, targets, or something similar. Whether you sell a service, cars, machines, furniture, or whatever.
That’s just the system.

But you argue yourself that you are actually not like that. Only banks and insurance companies act to the detriment of customers, so it’s okay to behave that way.

You’re allowed to. It’s not illegal if there is a ruling on it.
If that holds and many people win cases, it will cause great damage to the banks, who have refinanced the money as well (we’ll see if that actually happens). So what does the entrepreneur have to do? Increase the risk premium.

That is not my approach to things and I hope I’m not alone with that. It’s industry-independent.
My examples were only meant to illustrate that depending on where you ask, there is always someone who has a bone to pick with some industry.

With the diesel ferry, the question is also what damage has really occurred. There has always been cheating with consumption. With gasoline and with diesel. How many percent of buyers really bought the car because of the emissions values? The first real damage occurred when the resale value dropped after the scandal was uncovered. And suddenly EVERYONE bought the car because it was supposedly so environmentally friendly. That’s ridiculous. Money was smelled by the plaintiffs and the opportunity was taken. I say, it’s OK.

Honestly, I don’t understand. Now you’re arguing here that the question is what damage has even occurred, that all this is ridiculous, and that this is your argument in favor of the lawsuits being OK?

In any case, there was no advisor present who explicitly pointed out any possibility of withdrawal.

But you are an informed consumer and certainly knew about the possibilities of withdrawal.