The XI Civil Senate, responsible, among other things, for banking law, ruled on February 23, 2016, in two proceedings (XI ZR 549/14 and XI ZR 101/15) on lawsuits brought by a consumer protection association, seeking injunctive relief against the defendant savings banks regarding revocation information provided in consumer loan agreements.
The plaintiff asserted that the revocation information contained in the loan agreement forms used by the defendants was not sufficiently highlighted. Furthermore, in proceeding XI ZR 101/15, he objected that the information included notes with checkbox options, irrespective of their relevance to the specific individual case, thereby distracting from the content of the information.
The plaintiff's appeals on points of law against the appellate judgments dismissing the action were unsuccessful.
Regarding the first question, the XI Civil Senate ruled that at least since June 11, 2010, there has been no obligation to highlight the mandatory information on the right of revocation to be included in a consumer loan agreement. According to Art. 247 § 6 para. 1 and para. 2 sentences 1 and 2 EGBGB, introduced at that time in connection with the implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive, this mandatory information merely needs to be clear and comprehensible, without thereby mandating its highlighting. An obligation to highlight also does not arise from Art. 247 § 6 para. 2 sentence 3 EGBGB. Although this provision speaks of a highlighted and clearly designed form, this only concerns cases where, unlike the present situation, the aim is to achieve the fiction of legality by voluntarily using the model form for revocation information mentioned in the provision, in accordance with Annex 7 to Art. 247 § 6 para. 2 and § 12 para. 1 EGBGB.
Regarding the checkbox options, the XI Civil Senate ruled that these do not conflict with the requirement for clear and comprehensible design of standardized revocation information in a consumer loan agreement.
Judgment of the Federal Court of Justice of February 23, 2016 – XI ZR 549/14
Lower Courts:
Ulm Regional Court – Judgment of July 17, 2013 – 10 O 33/13 KfH
Stuttgart Higher Regional Court – Judgment of April 24, 2014 – 2 U 98/13
and
Federal Court of Justice Judgment of February 23, 2016 – XI ZR 101/15
Lower Courts:
Stuttgart Regional Court – Judgment of May 26, 2014 – 44 O 7/14 KfH
Stuttgart Higher Regional Court – Judgment of February 5, 2015 – 2 U 81/14
Source: Press Release of the Federal Court of Justice
Goldberg Attorneys at Law 2016
Attorney-at-Law Michael Ullrich, LL.M. (Information Law)
Specialist Attorney for Information Technology Law
Email: info@goldberg.de
