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

Then I can't help if you don't watch it all.... And no, it's probably not about the old story, as the video was actually from yesterday. And the left-wing "oddball" is probably one of the most famous lawyers in all of Germany. Even if probably more among the younger audience. I learned a lot of interesting things from him.

He would be smarter than the financial industry. Do you know what it cost the banks? They will have already changed the contracts.

Try googling EUGH and revocation. There are now several articles about it. Among others, from FAZ. It seems to be true. Solmecke was my first source on YouTube.

I will quote a short and concise statement on the topic:

Every consumer has the option to revoke a private loan agreement within 14 days of concluding the contract. The existence of this option, when the deadline starts to run, and other details must be – understandable for the customer – derived from the revocation information (formerly: revocation instruction).

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided on March 26, 2020, that most German loan agreements since June 2010 do not meet these requirements. Regarding the start of the revocation period, most contracts refer to a labyrinth of paragraphs, the outcome of which cannot be reached by consumers without legal training: A violation of the European requirement of “clarity and conciseness,” according to the judges in Brussels.

The result of this inadequate revocation information is that the 14-day period never started to run and the contract can still be revoked today. This applies to contracts concluded between June 2010 and today.

Regards
Specki

The statement "Almost all loan agreements can be revoked" is not a logically necessary consequence of the requirement for the comprehensibility of the deadline explanation in the revocation information. Rather, this statement is a typical headline intended to encourage further reading and is not substantiated in the text. There are revocable contracts that are precisely vulnerable at this point. The statement "almost all" is a bold thesis, and in interpretable matters such as "comprehensibility for the customer," the effectiveness of a revocation is uncertain.

Let's wait and see. I found the mentioned passage directly for [Bausparer] and [Annuitätendarlehen]. For the [KFW Kredit fürs Haus] and for the photovoltaic system, I didn't find any right of withdrawal at all. Strange?

It's very current, the ruling was issued the day before yesterday and is already found in some media by now. I still think there's something to it. The consequences would, of course, be very far-reaching!

In my opinion, and also according to some legal scholars, the application of the ECJ ruling to all cascade references in loan agreements regarding the right of withdrawal cannot yet be affirmed. Especially in view of the previous case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), which considers cascade references to be appropriate, one must now wait for the further instances in the case from Saarland and can only then make a well-founded statement.

Of course, personally one can inquire with their financial institution in this regard and hope for goodwill for new conditions. But without legal recourse, which is currently, as mentioned above, still uncertain, probably very few institutions, especially in the current situation, will voluntarily forgo the good earnings from old loan agreements.

And with all the legal jargon, one must keep in mind what it is actually about...

People are looking for a loophole to get out of a contract. And in 99.9% of all cases, it has nothing to do with the fact that, if they had been properly informed back then, they would have exercised the right of withdrawal, but exclusively with the aim of concluding a more favorable contract for their own benefit. Morally, none of that deserves applause from me, legal rights notwithstanding.