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

Where is the problem in simply saying that this loophole exists and is now being exploited. It has always been clear to everyone what the cancellation policy is about. No matter how understandable or incomprehensible it is written. If we were affected, I would of course, very selfishly, also use it. That would reduce our interest costs by €15,000. You would really be stupid to give that up. Almost everyone thinks of themselves first. Sometimes the banks have the advantage, and now such an advantage has opened up for some customers.

You could have objected immediately. To put it simply, a one-liner like "I hereby revoke with immediate effect [..]" would suffice. And when exactly the 14-day period ends doesn’t matter at all; you’re not going to wait until day 14 to come up with the idea to revoke.

Wrong, a revocation requires no justification! It’s only about when the 14-day period starts and ends.

Again: Anyone who wanted to revoke could have managed it, no matter how many references there are. This whole legal nitpicking and abstract references only concern hypothetical fringe cases of people who at the last minute, in a night-and-fog operation, slip the revocation into the bank’s mailbox just before midnight. And only when the bank says the deadline has passed would you have to deal with these paragraphs.

I believe the classic right of withdrawal lasts 14 days and can be exercised without justification. But I don’t know it for sure, and from the text in our contract, I couldn’t draw that conclusion either. I admit, I haven’t dealt with it at all. Maybe they even said something about it, but it got lost in the flood of information.

Luckily, we didn’t have to make use of it either. On the other hand, I know some people who have exercised this right of objection. Whether my three acquaintances were just statistical outliers or if it happens more often, I don’t know.

The fact is, the right of objection is formulated very complicatedly (from book A to B to C, back to A). It would have been enough to state the purpose right away.
It could also have been phrased more consumer-friendly, which other banks have proven. That the ECJ has now ruled against the banks is unfortunate.
I will run the numbers, and if it’s worth it (so if it’s not just a thousand euros), then we will object and switch. I’m glad about this nice little loophole.

[...] that he can revoke within 14 days from signature.

Not exactly. What is missing is that the revocation period only begins at the earliest once one has been properly informed about the right of withdrawal. This also applies to a completely normal online purchase. For example, if one ordered a hard drive and was not informed about the right of withdrawal during the ordering process and then again shortly afterwards by email in the order confirmation, the period would not start. If there was also no withdrawal instruction included in the package, one could still revoke even 30 days after receiving the goods. The key point is always that one must be properly informed about the right of withdrawal. In this respect, the judgment of the CJEU does not focus on the period itself but on the proper information about the right! For consumer loans, there could be even more "earliest when" conditions (I don't know about that now). For example, it could be that three weeks after signing I already had a better offer from a competing bank, but did not accept it under the assumption that I could no longer revoke with the first bank since the instruction stated 14 days. However, even under the old instruction form, upon careful reading and understanding of all referenced legal texts, the withdrawal period would only have expired, for example, 26 days after my signature. So even under the previous legislation, it would have been possible for me to exercise my right of withdrawal, as the period in the example did not begin running from the date of my signature but rather later. In that case, I would have been misled by the (deliberately?!) unclear instruction. That is probably what the CJEU is getting at. The matter is not that simple. Contractual morals aside.

Have you ever read through such a text or tried to trace it in the various legal texts? You get sent around in circles three times. After landing in the same legal book for the second time, I gave up. If the banks had wanted it clear and straightforward, it would have been possible without problems. So by the fourth reference, you stop trying to understand what your objection can be based on. In our case, we clearly wouldn’t have wanted to object at all, but I wouldn’t have been able to do so easily either, because I wouldn’t have understood anything. And that’s exactly where the ruling rightly comes in and “punishes” the banks. A “from signature you have 2 weeks to object” would have been enough. Other contracts have that and it is valid. No, it has been made incredibly complicated (whether intentionally or simply because of twisted thinking) so that you as a layperson don’t know what is possible. Why shouldn’t I use that if I can save a lot of money? Out of pure charity for the bank? No, I’m out.

My very honest opinion: Whoever acts so stupid in my opinion shouldn’t even be allowed to sign a loan agreement of hundreds of thousands of euros in the first place.

You get sent in circles three times. After I ended up in the same law book for the second time, I gave up.

And actually, you are not supposed to sign then, but should demand a clear formulation.

My honest opinion: Whoever acts that stupid, in my opinion, should not be allowed to sign a loan contract for hundreds of thousands of euros in the first place.

With that argument, one could just as well abolish the right of withdrawal. You can gladly put that forward as a thesis...

And actually, one should not sign then, but demand a clear wording.

Evolith did not describe it that way now. But sometimes it can be that one believes to have understood something, but actually misunderstands it. So one does not even think to ask. And then? Some would say: well, then it was okay for you. But the fact that the seller has an informational advantage over the buyer cannot be denied. So how to prevent this from being exploited to the consumer's disadvantage? I find consumer protection good and important. I also find it important to consider adult people as mature beings. Somewhere in between, the legislator must find a balance. Some like it, others don’t.