On 23 February 2006, the XI Civil Senate, which is also responsible for banking law, ruled in two proceedings (XI ZR 549/14 and XI ZR 101/15) on actions brought by a consumer protection association against the defendant savings banks for injunctive relief in connection with revocation information provided by the savings banks for consumer loan agreements.
The plaintiff claimed that the revocation information contained in the loan agreement forms used by the defendants was not highlighted clearly enough. In the proceedings XI ZR 101/15, he also complained that the information contained information with tick-box options, irrespective of whether these played a role in the specific individual case. This distracted from the content of the information.
The plaintiff's appeals against the dismissal of the action were unsuccessful.
On the former question, the XI Civil Senate ruled that, at least since 11 June 2010, there is no obligation to highlight the mandatory information on the right of withdrawal to be included in a consumer loan agreement. According to Article 247 § 6 (1) and (2) first and second sentences of the Introductory Act to the Introductory Act to the German Civil Code (EGBGB), which was introduced at that time in connection with the implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive, these compulsory particulars merely have to be clear and comprehensible without their being required to be highlighted. An obligation to highlight does not result from Art. 247 § 6 par. 2 sentence 3 EGBGB either. This provision does speak of a highlighted and clearly designed form. However, this only concerns those cases in which, unlike in the present case, the legal effect is achieved by voluntarily using the model for a revocation information pursuant to Annex 7 to Article 247 § 6 (2) and § 12 (1) of the Introductory Act to the Introductory Act to the German Civil Code (EGBGB).
The XI Civil Senate ruled that the checkbox options do not conflict with the requirement of clear and comprehensible drafting of a revocation information form in a consumer loan agreement.
Judgment of the BGH of 23 February 2016 - XI ZR 549/14
Lower courts:
LG Ulm - Judgment of 17 July 2013 - 10 O 33/13 KfH
Stuttgart Higher Regional Court - Judgment of 24 April 2014 - 2 U 98/13
and
Judgment of the Federal Supreme Court of 23 February 2016 - XI ZR 101/15
Lower courts:
Stuttgart Regional Court - Judgment of 26 May 2014 - 44 O 7/14 KfH
Stuttgart Higher Regional Court - Judgment of 5 February 2015 - 2 U 81/14
Source: Press release of the BGH
Goldberg Attorneys at Law 2016
Attorney at Law Michael Ullrich,LL.M. (Information Law)
Specialist lawyer for information technology law
E-mail: info@goldberg.de
