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

Which judgment from the BGH is still pending on this – and how should it turn out if not in accordance with the ECJ? Top beats bottom ...

There is no BGH judgment yet following the ECJ ruling.

I also thought top beats bottom, but apparently that is not the case.

My further research has only revealed that the Higher Regional Court of Rostock (Az. 1b 1U 1/19) is changing its view regarding a credit revocation and is following the BGH’s perspective. The court has suggested that the parties reach a settlement.

I replied to my bank today, referring to their brief rejection on April 17th, indicating that I would like to reach a settlement.

Let’s see what comes back.

Correction: The OLG Rostock follows the EuGH, and the only way the bank could be off the hook is if it has adopted the model text prescribed by the BGH one hundred percent. However, this has not yet been conclusively clarified. Apparently, not all banks have done so anyway, which is why they cannot now rely on the model protection.

Correction: The Higher Regional Court of Rostock follows the CJEU, and the only way the bank could be off the hook is if it has adopted the model text prescribed by the Federal Court of Justice one hundred percent. However, this has not yet been definitively clarified. Apparently, not all banks have done this anyway, which is why they cannot now invoke the model protection.

Regarding the model text: "... In other words, the legislative materials merely indicate that the German legislator has considered how a model revocation instruction might look. However, the legislator has explicitly not stated that an instruction that does not follow the model may contain the cascade proof. ..."

So it does not seem to be set in stone yet. Let's wait and see.

Viewpoint of the BGH follows

It must of course be EuGh..

So, in further proceedings, it would first have to be judged to what extent a deviation from the [Mustertest] nullifies the [Musterschutz]?

Correct. Although I understand it in such a way that the pattern is interpreted quite narrowly, so that significant deviations definitely cannot expect protection under the pattern.