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

According to a friend (who works in the field), the banks are protected against these "sudden" changes in the law.

We, as the second largest banking group in Germany, are not.

I do not see that as a shady loophole. It was an attempt, conscious or unconscious, to make it difficult for the consumer to understand their right of withdrawal.

I did not mean just the mortgage financiers – you would have also taken those out if the withdrawal notice had said that you may only withdraw while dancing naked in front of the bank. Within the mentioned 14 days, EVERY customer has thought about whether they want the financing or not. It also concerns savings contracts that are terminated by banks. The outcry from consumer advocates there is huge. Banks also use loopholes there. No customer is dissatisfied with their mortgage financing. It is only about making an additional cut! And I do not think that is good. Especially when it involves very old contracts.

I do not see this as a shady loophole. It was an attempt, whether conscious or unconscious, to make it difficult for the consumer to understand their right of withdrawal. They could have written it clearly. No, it was made as complicated as possible. Not a nice approach either.

Show me one person who did not understand the withdrawal right and was unable to withdraw because of too complicated texts or was prevented from withdrawing by these formulations. Only then can you blame the oh-so-evil bank for it. Addendum: It concerns contracts involving money. You don’t need a "nice approach" there but legal certainty, on both sides! And that is what the banks wanted to achieve with a recommended standard formulation. I don’t know where some people imagine an intent to deceive from.

And that is what the banks wanted to achieve with a recommended standard wording. I don’t know where some people imagine an intent to deceive from.

In practice, the cases will be interesting in which the banks have not adopted the model texts of the legislator 100% but have modified/omitted/not highlighted passages.... Everyone can guess the reason for this themselves

Indeed, it seems that the recommended template text has by no means always been used. This is now backfiring, although the issue would of course also exist with identical adoption.

Either way, I mainly see a braking of the BGH here, which, to the great surprise of many involved – including the legislature – has so far decided very bank-friendly. Needless to say, it is by definition completely neutral, and any tendency in favor of banks is based on the complete lawfulness of their actions.

It is the now officially failed attempt to protect the poor battered banks – this already started a few years ago during the major real estate crisis – and this has no justification in an open market economy. For me, another aspect of this ruling.

We also have the clause in our contracts and legal protection - nevertheless, I remain skeptical. If I understood that correctly, I could contest the contract - but I would need to have a credit institution in reserve that would take over the contract and first register itself in second place in the land register, right? First place is (still) assigned and would have to be removed first.

Our contract is still valid for 4 years and was concluded at 2.5% ...

Does your legal protection insurance also apply to real estate?