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

If I had a financing that has been running for 6 years at 3.4% and if I had legal protection, then I would definitely try it. But all the hassle over 0.5%? I'll watch the fun a bit longer, pay off calmly for 2-3 years, and then one can still decide whether to come to an agreement with the bank. The issue isn’t going away.

I have to ask a really basic question now. If completed loan agreements do not include the relevant clauses, could they be terminated? And then? Take out a new one? At better current conditions? How should one imagine this, for example, with construction financing – you terminate. What happens next? Look for another bank? Or hope that the previous bank refinances? What happens to the mortgage in the event of a bank change, doesn’t it have to be transferred expensively?

Identical procedure as with a follow-up financing.

But my impression so far is that "almost all contracts affected" is not really accurate. Clickbait.

I'm not sure about it now, but if I understand correctly, a revocation has different consequences than a termination. I can't say exactly what they are right now.

Has anyone already checked if they have the corresponding paragraph in their revocation instruction?

I quote from the comments under the video from the law firm WBS: "with a mortgage loan, one usually agrees with the bank beforehand on a lower interest rate or obtains a new loan beforehand, so that the loans transition seamlessly into each other. Otherwise, the repayment of the loan would actually be due relatively quickly - after 30 days -."

I just think, these are real lawyers. They should at least somewhat know what they're talking about...

To me, it sounds quite plausible so far.

I just think, these are real lawyers. They should at least have a rough idea of what they're talking about...

No one doubts that either, but one should also critically question things that sound very advantageous to oneself.

In the present case, in my opinion, one should at least ask the following two questions:

1. Why does someone upload such a YouTube video?

2. Is the legal situation really as clear as it is presented here?

The first can probably be answered with advertising and the motivation to make money, and I already wrote something about the second one above.

1. Why does someone upload such a YouTube video?

Of course, it is advertising for him. He has been running a very successful YouTube channel for many years and constantly posts videos about legal events. And something like that is naturally a good topic.

2. Is the legal situation really as clear-cut as it is presented here?

According to other sources, it apparently is. But I don’t blindly trust it either. One should definitely have it thoroughly checked again.