Withdrawal joker

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Germany, the term describes revocation Joker the possibility of a loan agreement to be able to roll back the many years after conclusion of the contract. The reverse transaction is possible due to incorrect cancellation instructions issued by the bank . The declaration of intent made by the consumer and directed towards the conclusion of the contract is revoked.

Due to the inaccuracy of the cancellation policy, the statutory cancellation period could not be set in motion, so that the borrowers affected can exercise their right of cancellation even after this period has expired.

The objection to a life insurance policy is also often referred to as a withdrawal joker, which is legally incorrect .

definition

The phrase cancellation joker is made up of two parts of the word. On the one hand, the part of the word revocation refers to the design right, which makes a subsequent solution from the contract possible from a consumer protection perspective.

On the one hand, the designation as a joker aims at the possibility of being able to break away from old high-interest contracts. Such a possibility is only given in exceptional cases due to the principle prevailing in German law that contracts are binding ( pacta sunt servanda ).

On the other hand, the revocation of a loan contract is known as a revocation joker, as this brings high interest savings for the borrower. The revoking consumers can achieve high savings thanks to the current low level of interest rates. As a result of the revocation, the regular prepayment penalty to be paid no longer applies .

Legal background of the withdrawal joker

In the course of the conclusion of the contract, the borrower must be informed by the bank of certain facts which the legislature perceives to be significant. These disclosure obligations are currently standardized in Art. 247 EGBGB.

One of these essential circumstances is that the borrower can withdraw from the conclusion of the contract within a period that varies depending on the legal version. By granting a cooling off period, the consumer is to be protected from hasty and ill-considered decisions.

By exercising his right of withdrawal, the borrower can withdraw his declaration of intent for the conclusion of the contract and thus subsequently eliminate the contract. This right is regulated for consumer loans in § 355 BGB, for real estate loan contracts in § 495 BGB.

The withdrawal period cannot start if the lender has not instructed the borrower or has not instructed them properly. The so-called perpetual right of withdrawal resulted from this legal situation, which existed for contracts concluded from 2002 to 2010 until June 21, 2016 .

In 2014, the addition was added to Section 356 III BGB that the right of cancellation expires at the latest one year and 14 days after the conclusion of the contract, so that after this period expired, cancellation was excluded from now on.

The revocation of older contracts, concluded before June 2014, remained possible until the abolition of the revocation joker on June 21, 2016.

History of the withdrawal joker / development of the right of withdrawal

Corresponding to the desire for complete consumer protection , the scope of the right of withdrawal has been continuously expanded and adapted to the needs that commercial transactions place on German law.

The Doorstep Cancellation Act (HWiG) (May 1, 1986 to December 31, 2004)

The doorstep right of withdrawal , which was in effect from May 1, 1986 to December 31, 2004, was only applicable to transactions conducted within the consumer's home. In order to protect consumers from the consequences of an "overwhelmed situation", the legislature granted those affected the right to be able to remove the contract afterwards.

The basis for this law was Directive 85/577 EEC of the European Council. The guideline was implemented in German law by the Doorstep Cancellation Act. The right of withdrawal granted by the Doorstep Cancellation Act could not expire if incorrect cancellation instructions were issued. Consumers who have concluded a transaction outside the business premises of the contractual partner could revoke their declaration of intent for the conclusion of the contract up to one month after the mutual provision of services. In the case of a loan agreement, this is the point in time at which the entire loan value date has been repaid to the lender. Since this point in time is often decades away from the conclusion of the contract, the right of withdrawal according to the HWiG is considered to be unlimited.

Consumer Credit Act (January 1, 1991 to December 31, 2001)

The Consumer Credit Act (PDF) , like the Doorstep Cancellation Act, was implemented in national law on the basis of a directive (RL 87/102 / EEC) . Compared to the Doorstep Revocation Act, the scope of the Consumer Credit Act was expanded, as it granted every consumer, regardless of the specific contractual situation, a right of revocation when concluding a loan contract. The time frame in which a person concerned could exercise his right of withdrawal was limited to one year by the Consumer Credit Act, without the fact that the information on the right of withdrawal was incorrect.

Law of obligations reform on January 1, 2002

Due to the comprehensive reform of the law of obligations in 2002, large parts of the German Civil Code (BGB) were reorganized. In this context, the Doorstep Cancellation Act and the Consumer Credit Act were integrated into the BGB. To this day, the central provisions on the right of withdrawal can be found in §§ 312 ff BGB and §§ 355 ff BGB. For loan contracts between consumers and a credit institution, the relevant right of withdrawal has been incorporated into the section for financial services ( §§ 495 ff BGB).

The eternal right of withdrawal

With an amendment to the law that came into force on August 1, 2002, the legislature created the so-called perpetual right of withdrawal. Due to a transitional regulation, however, it has only been mandatory for entrepreneurs since November 2002 to instruct the consumer about his right of withdrawal. This obligation was codified in Section 355 (3) sentence 2 BGB old version.

In order to simplify the instruction of the consumer for the entrepreneur and to guarantee uniform consumer protection, the legislature created a so-called model instruction. The users could orientate themselves on this. In the best case scenario, they only had to adjust them depending on the situation.

For loan agreements, the legal sample instructions were up until June 10, 2010 in Appendix 2 to § 14 I and II BGB Info-V.

Due to practical application difficulties and criticism from the jurisprudence, the model cancellation policy has been changed a total of seven times. In particular, the formulations at the beginning of the cancellation period and the consequences of cancellation have been modified to make them easier to understand.

The right of withdrawal for so-called old contracts (01.11.2002 - 10.06.2010) is in accordance with Art. 229 § 38 III EGBGB finally expired on June 21, 2016, so that affected borrowers can no longer invoke the incorrectness of the revocation instruction given to them.

Cancellation policy for contracts June 11, 2010 to June 12, 2014

For contracts that were concluded between June 11, 2010 and June 12, 2014, the corresponding sample cancellation policy has been moved from Info-V to EGBGB.

Fundamental to this change was the fact that many regional and higher regional courts declared the text contained in the BGB-InfoV to be ineffective because of errors in instruction that violated applicable law and, in return, developed their own standards.

The possibility of declaring the sample instructions of the InfoV invalid existed because it had no legal status. Formal laws, on the other hand, such as the EGBGB, can only be declared ineffective by federal constitutional law.

The Federal Court of Justice summarizes this development as follows:

"By introducing Art. 245 EGBGB (old version), the legislator has authorized the legislator of the BGB Information Duty Ordinance to withdraw the model for the revocation instruction created by the legislator from a dispute about its legality."

For entrepreneurs, the new location of the model revocation instruction had the advantage that they could refer to the legal fiction.

The legal fiction allows the user of an instruction to refer to the correctness of the instruction if he has taken it over completely from the law, both in terms of content and presentation. Even if the jurisprudence should judge individual passages as incorrect in the future, the person to be instructed cannot invoke these errors, since trust in the law protects the user.

Right of withdrawal between June 13, 2014 and March 20, 2016

As part of the implementation of a directive of the European Union ( directive 2014/17 / EU ), which aimed to standardize consumer protection within the EU, the right of withdrawal was limited in time. The § 355 para. 4 BGB, which regulated an unlimited notification of cancellation after a false doctrine, was deleted without replacement, so an eternal right to cancel contracts that time no longer existed.

Cancellation instructions for loan contracts from March 21, 2016

With effect from March 21, 2016, a maximum limit was introduced in Section 356b of the German Civil Code ( BGB) for contracts that involve the acquisition of a property. After this, the right of withdrawal expires, irrespective of all errors, at the latest one year and 14 days after the conclusion of the contract or after the loan contract / application has been handed over. The later point in time is to be used as the basis for calculating the withdrawal period. The abolition of the so-called cancellation joker only applies to real estate loan agreements. General consumer credits that were concluded between 2002 and 2010 can still be revoked for an unlimited period of time if the cancellation policy is incorrect.

Abolition of the withdrawal joker for old contracts on June 21, 2016

The "transitional provision to the law for the implementation of the residential real estate credit directive and for the amendment of commercial law regulations" ( Federal Law Gazette 2016 I p. 396 ), which came into force on March 21, 2016, meant that the loan contracts concerned were no longer due to incorrectly given cancellation instructions can be revoked.

The right of withdrawal expired at the latest when the transition period expired on June 21, 2016.

Loan agreements concluded at a later date were expressly excluded from the change in the law in accordance with the reasons for the law.

The residential real estate credit directive was by no means undisputed. Many consumer advocates as well as the highest political bodies criticized the abolition of the withdrawal joker within the implementation of the directive.

Caren Lay, member of the Bundestag for the Left, assessed the planned implementation of the directive in the 155th Bundestag session as follows:

“The impetus for changing the law today - although that is also part of the truth - does not come from the government, from the coalition in Berlin; it is once again the EU that is forcing Germany to implement a directive. Unfortunately, that is now the order of the day in consumer policy. […] With this implementation, however, at the end of the day, ie today, you will ultimately deprive consumers of options with a directive that is intended to strengthen consumer rights. I can't understand that at all. We find that completely unacceptable. [...]

But the coalition shot the bird with the change in the right of withdrawal. Without need, we should decide today to make a change to the detriment of consumers, a change that the EU directive does not urge us to make at all. For years, the banks have simply sent false cancellation instructions. This allows consumers, as long as this is not corrected, to terminate their loan agreements. That is a thorn in the side of the banks. I think the banks could fix this mistake by providing proper follow-up. But they don't do this because they fear that they will wake sleeping dogs. Instead, the banks lobbied - apparently with members of the German Bundestag , the government and the Bundesrat - and said: Dear politicians, let's fix it for us! And that is exactly what we should do today for the banks at the expense of consumers. I can't understand at all how you let the banks pull you into the cart. "

At the same meeting, Dr. Gerhard Schick ( Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen ) found the curtailment of the right of withdrawal to be unsatisfactory.

“Above all, one thing must be asked: If there is legal uncertainty for consumers, at what points have we intervened retrospectively in the contractual agreements in recent years? At this point that is done. I think one should consider what a precedent that is. In any case, we do not share the view that a fair balance of interests has been carried out at this point. [...]

The question is whether something should be regulated differently in the future. As far as legal peace is concerned: We constantly have legal disputes between consumers on the one hand and banks or insurance companies on the other. I remember the buyers of Lehman certificates. In retrospect it became clear that the limitation period was set in a way that was not good. But there was no retroactive change. That is why the question is whether the legal peace is not defined here in a very one-sided way and a standard that you would not apply yourself in many other places, and that is exactly our point of criticism. "

Thomas Kutschaty, Minister of Justice in North Rhine-Westphalia, described the new law in the context of the 942nd meeting of the Federal Council in the following words:

"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! "Law for the implementation of the residential real estate credit directive" does not sound very exciting at first. At the same time, the German Bundestag is attempting to bypass two further regulations within the framework of this legislative procedure, which have no material connection with the implementation of the directive. We are talking about the provisions on the overdraft facility and the expiry of rights of withdrawal from older real estate loan agreements. Unfortunately, these regulations have one unpleasant thing in common: They favor the banks in relation to the concerns of consumers that are worth protecting. "

Despite the massive criticism, the amendment law was passed. The question of the constitutionality of the law remains controversial. It is therefore very likely that the Federal Constitutional Court will have to deal with the law in detail.

Withdrawal joker as an inadmissible exercise of rights

The credit institutions often argue that the revocation is purely for economic reasons. This objection is based on the fact that the consumer has often serviced the loan without hesitation for years. Only after the possibility of revocation had been reported in the media did the consumer take advantage of it. The banks want this to be understood as contradicting behavior.

The objection of forfeiture

Since a lot of time has passed since the conclusion of the contract and thus also since the incorrect cancellation policy was issued, the question arises as to whether the borrower's right of cancellation should be subject to time limits.

In this context, many credit institutions raise the objection of forfeiture as part of a statement on the revocation of their customers.

The forfeiture is a legal institution recognized under customary law and a special case of inadmissible exercise of the law. It represents a time-flexible supplement to the rigid limitation and exclusion periods and protects the belief that the opponent will no longer exercise a right. The forfeiture presupposes a time and a circumstance moment. A long time must have passed since it was possible to assert the right. There must also be special circumstances of trust.

With the objection of forfeiture, the case law pursues the purpose of excluding the disloyal delayed assertion of rights. In this respect, the point of view of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal peace also flow into the consideration. Limitation and exclusion periods and a possible forfeiture can coexist. There is no relation of specialty.

In order to avoid eroding the statute of limitations and preclusion periods, the forfeiture of a right can only be considered in absolute exceptional cases.

A right is forfeited when the moment and the circumstance moment are met. The moment of time is present if the right to assert the right has been passed since the first possibility, a longer period of time has passed and the person entitled has remained inactive despite knowledge.

The circumstance factor, on the other hand, is given if further circumstances that, after weighing up all the circumstances and interests in the individual case, make the late assertion of the right appear as unfaithful hardship.

In particular, it should be taken into account whether the opposing side can invoke a trust worthy of protection that claims will no longer be made.

Abuse of law

In addition to the forfeiture, the abuse of rights of the right of withdrawal was the linchpin of numerous discussions. 

The abuse of law constitutes an offense of the disapproved use of the law and prohibits the right holder, just like the forfeiture, temporarily or permanently from enforcing his right.

A party is denied the enforcement of a legal position resulting from certain circumstances or a legal norm because of reduced protection. The legal institution of the "inadmissible exercise of law" should appreciate the interests existing between the parties and propose an appropriate legal consequence in deviation from the results found by the legal norm. The numerous case groups developed by the case law on abuse of law are based in principle on the defamation of malice.

Jurisprudence

Many lower courts raised the issue of forfeiture on the consumer side and denied any limitation of the right of withdrawal in the area. Other judges, however, judged the assertion of the right of withdrawal as abusive behavior and denied consumers the right to appeal.

Over time, the case law became noticeably clearer and the voices that assumed that the right of withdrawal would be forfeited could only be heard in isolated cases. In particular, the consumer-friendly case law of the Federal Court of Justice has played a part in this development.

In the cases in which the Federal Court of Justice has ruled on the subject of forfeiture and abuse of rights, it has rejected these. A recurring argument is that the entrepreneur has it in his own hands to initiate the withdrawal period through proper instruction (or follow-up instruction). In this respect, he also has to accept the disadvantages that result from the right of withdrawal.

However, the Federal Court of Justice has not categorically excluded the forfeiture of the right of withdrawal in any judgment. Like any right, a consumer right of withdrawal is also subject to the general principles of good faith and can therefore in principle also be forfeited. It is always a question of the individual case.

In the following judgments and resolutions, the Federal Court of Justice has decided on the forfeiture and abuse of rights of the right of withdrawal (in chronological order):

Federal Court of Justice File number date content
06/14/2004 II ZR 392/02 Real estate fund reversal: Forfeiture rejected
06/14/2004 II ZR 295/01 Revocation of a real estate fund: forfeiture rejected
11/15/2004 II ZR 375/02 Revocation according to HWiG: forfeiture rejected
12/12/2005 II ZR 327/04 Revocation of a real estate fund: forfeiture rejected
03/10/2009 XI ZR 33/08 Right of withdrawal granted without entering into forfeiture
10/26/2010 XI ZR 267/07 Revocation according to HWiG: forfeiture rejected
07/05/2014 IV ZR 76/11 Objection to life insurance: forfeiture rejected
07/29/2015 IV ZR 448/14 Objection to life insurance: Forfeiture rejected, despite termination nine years ago
07/29/2015 IV ZR 384/14 Objection to life insurance: forfeiture rejected
09/22/2015 XI ZR 116/15 Forfeiture is not the subject of the procedure, only the incorrectness of the instruction
02/10/2016 IV ZR 19/15 Objection to life insurance: forfeiture rejected despite termination
02/24/2016 IV ZR 490/14 Objection to life insurance: forfeiture rejected
03/23/2016 IV ZR 122/14 Objection to life insurance: forfeiture rejected
05/11/2016 IV ZR 229/14 Objection to a life insurance policy: Forfeiture rejected despite termination
07/12/2016 XI ZR 501/15 Right of revocation according to HWiG: Findings of the lower court do not reveal any indication of forfeiture
07/20/2016 IV ZR 166/12 Objection to life insurance: forfeiture rejected despite termination

Two rulings from 2016 in particular pointed the way.

With a judgment of March 16, 2016, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the consumer's motives for a revocation are irrelevant from the legal point of view. A forfeiture can therefore only be assumed as an exception.

In July 2016, the Federal Court of Justice made an implicit decision on the question of legal abuse for the first time and then rejected it with detailed reasons. The dispute over this topic was a thing of the past.

Reverse transaction

For a long time it was controversial in legal teaching which factors have to be taken into account when reversing a loan agreement. The dispute was finally resolved by the Federal Court of Justice on January 12, 2016.

Consumers can take the various calculation methods and the resulting results from the sample worksheet from Stiftung Warentest on loan revocation. A complex Excel table serves as the basis for this. In addition to this option, a few specialized law firms also offer a reverse processing computer.

Calculation method based on BGH judgment XI ZR 33/08

The so-called conventional method is the most stringent reversal method that has been advocated. Originally, this goes back to the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice in March 2009. However, the Federal Court of Justice has continuously developed the principles of reversal, so that this method was only used temporarily to calculate the reversal balance.

In the context of the so-called reversal obligation, essentially two refunds are carried out.

The borrower must repay the lender the entire loan value date regardless of repayment. Interest is paid on the value date either with the contractually agreed interest rate or, if more favorable, with the customary market interest rate that was valid at the time the contract was concluded.

The lender must repay the borrower all payments made by him (interest and principal payments). This amount is also subject to dynamic interest at five percentage points above the base rate of the European Central Bank .

The development of this theory can be seen under point 3.

Calculation according to Winneke

Another reversal method comes from the lawyer Maik Winneke. With this calculation, the borrower must repay the loan value that is still in his assets at this point in time. Any (partial) repayment that has already been made is taken into account. Since the borrower will regularly not be able to surrender the original loan value, he is obliged to pay compensation. The contractual interest rate is to be paid on the respective remaining loan value date. If the borrower can prove that the normal market interest rate was lower, this can also be used as the basis for the calculation.

In contrast to the highest court rulings, Winneke differentiates between the borrower's claims for reimbursement.

According to Winneke, the borrower must return the interest payments made during the term of the contract plus the so-called compensation for use. The repayments, however, are to be regarded as early loan repayment. In accordance with the nature of the loan agreement, the lender only owes the borrower a temporary transfer of use. The loan value date should therefore not remain in the borrower's assets. This must also apply to the reverse transaction. The early repayment of part of the value date is therefore not included in the reimbursement.

In summary, the lender must repay the borrower his interest payments plus interest at over 5 percentage points above the base rate of the European Central Bank or the agreed interest rate.

The borrower owes the bank the repayment of the remaining loan value at the time of revocation. Both services can be offset against each other upon declaration.

The calculation method was adopted by part of the case law and used as the basis for some important judgments.

Calculation according to the principles of the Federal Court of Justice (judgment of September 22, 2015 - XI ZR 116/15)

The Federal Court of Justice dealt in a number of decisions with the reversal principles that should apply after the revocation.

As already described above, the Federal Court of Justice initially took a very strict view of the reversal method, which, however, it developed further in subsequent judgments.

A milestone was a resolution passed in September 2015.

With reference to the previous ruling, the court found that the borrower had to return the entire loan value date to the bank regardless of partial repayment. In addition, he owes a so-called value replacement for the part of the loan value, either in the amount of the contractual or standard market interest rate. The MFI interest rate statistics of the Deutsche Bundesbank for real estate loans can be taken from the market interest rates at that time .

On the other hand, the lender must give the borrower the interest and principal payments made. In addition to the monthly installments to be repaid, the bank must pay the consumer an assumed compensation for use of 5 percentage points above the base rate. However, this presumption of the profits made on the borrower's money can be refuted by the bank. If the loan installments were made monthly, the interest rate that applies to the usage replacement is also determined dynamically.

If a pertinent statement is present, the two requirements are train to train by offsetting be offset with each other. In the case of an ongoing loan, the result is the new remaining loan value to be repaid to the bank. In the case of a loan that has already been repaid, the balance is calculated that the borrower can claim back from the bank.

With a ruling of January 12, 2016, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed its legal opinion and expressly rejected the other calculation methods as improper. In this, the Federal Court of Justice dealt with the amount of the compensation for use due to the borrower. The specific percentage has been hotly debated in specialist circles to date.

Contrary to previous case law, the borrower of a real estate loan should only be entitled to compensation for use of 2.5 percentage points above the base rate of the European Central Bank. A usage compensation of 5 percentage points above the base rate of the European Central Bank is only appropriate for consumer credits. This is the so-called assumed usage amount, which is assumed for the usage of the credit institution.

According to the decision of the Federal Court of Justice, a presumed compensation for use of 2.5 or 5 percentage points above the base rate is only to be applied if concrete amounts of use are not stated. According to the Federal Court of Justice, the presumed amount of use can be refuted by a specific presentation. In individual cases, compensation for use of more or less than 2.5 or 5 percentage points above the base rate can be awarded.

The Federal Court of Justice has not yet issued a final statement on how the usage amount is to be calculated specifically. In specialist circles, the type of concrete calculation of the compensation for use has always been controversial. A method that is currently advancing for the specific calculation of the usage amounts is based on the evaluation of the relevant business reports of the respective lender, with a particular focus on the return on equity of the credit institution being decisive. There are online calculators for the specific calculation method that borrowers can use to evaluate the benefits of the revocation using this specific calculation method. As a rule, the benefit for the consumer based on a specific calculation is even more positive compared to the assumed level of use. This type of concrete calculation has already been successful in the extrajudicial and lower-court areas. However, it remains to be seen how the Federal Court of Justice decides the method of the concrete usage calculation.

The current status of the most important questions regarding the revocation joker, in particular also the method of the specific usage calculation, can be found in the chronicle of the loan revocation from Stiftung Warentest.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Finkenauer: § 313 Rn. 3 ff. In: Müko .
  2. ↑ Cancellation joker: Incorrect cancellation policy in the loan contract - financial tip . In: Finanztip . ( finanztip.de [accessed on January 11, 2017]).
  3. ^ Franzen: § 485 Rn. 3 . Ed .: Müko.
  4. ↑ Krämer: § 495 Rn. 3 . In: Commentary on the BGB law of obligations .
  5. ↑ Directive 85/577 / EEC , accessed on January 11, 2017
  6. ↑ § 2 HWiG end of the withdrawal period - dejure.org. In: dejure.org. Retrieved January 11, 2017 .
  7. ↑ cf. BGH, judgment of November 10, 2009 - XI ZR 163/09; XI ZR 232/08
  8. ↑ § 355 BGB right of withdrawal for consumer contracts - dejure.org. In: dejure.org. Retrieved January 11, 2017 .
  9. ↑ buzer.de: Version § 355 BGB old version until June 11, 2010 (amended by Article 1 G. of July 29, 2009 BGBl. I p. 2355). In: www.buzer.de. Retrieved January 11, 2017 .
  10. ↑ BMJV | Sample instructions. In: www.bmjv.de. Retrieved January 11, 2017 .
  11. ↑ openJur eV: BGH, judgment of August 15, 2012 - Az. VIII ZR 378/11. In: openjur.de. Retrieved January 11, 2017 .
  12. ↑ Knops: § 495 Rn. 65 f . In: Beck-Online Großkommentar .
  13. ↑ Reasons for the law on the implementation of the residential real estate credit directive. (PDF) Retrieved January 11, 2017 .
  14. ^ Minutes of the 155th session of the Bundestag. (PDF) Retrieved January 11, 2017 .
  15. ^ Minutes of the 942nd meeting of the Federal Council. Retrieved January 11, 2017 .
  16. ↑ Schulze: § 242 Rn. 42 . In: Schulze, Commentary on the Civil Code .
  17. ↑ Mansel: § 242 Rn. 57. In: Jauernig, Commentary on the Civil Code .
  18. ↑ Schubert: § 242 Rn. 356 . In: MüKo zum BGB .
  19. ↑ Mansel: § 242 Rn. 57. In: Jauernig, Commentary on the Civil Code .
  20. ↑ Cancer: § 242 marginal no. 110 . In: Dauner-Lieb / Langen, commentary on the BGB, law of obligations .
  21. ↑ Grüneberg: § 242 Rn. 93 . In: Palandt .
  22. ↑ Cancer: § 242 marginal no. 109 . In: Dauner-Lieb / Langen, commentary on the BGB, law of obligations .
  23. ↑ Mansel: § 242 Rn. 37 ff. In: Commentary on the BGB .
  24. ↑ openJur eV: LG Bonn, judgment of June 18, 2014 - Az. 2 O 268/13. In: openjur.de. Retrieved January 11, 2017 .
  25. ↑ Duchstein: The forfeiture of the right of withdrawal for consumer loans . Ed .: NJW, 2015, 1409.
  26. ↑ BGH, judgment of March 16, 2016 - VIII ZR 146/15. Retrieved January 11, 2017 .
  27. ↑ BGH, judgment of July 12, 2016 - XI ZR 564/15
  28. ↑ BGH, judgment of January 12, 2016 Az. XI ZR 366/15, full text .
  29. ↑ BGH, press release No. 73/2016 .
  30. ↑ Stiftung Warentest: sample worksheet credit revocation - recalculate back processing - calculator - Stiftung Warentest. In: www.test.de. Retrieved January 11, 2017 .
  31. ↑ BGH, judgment of March 10, 2009, Az.XI ZR 33/08, full text .
  32. ↑ OLG Stuttgart, judgment of October 6, 2015, Az. 6 U 148/14, full text .
  33. ^ BGH, decision of September 22, 2015, full text .
  34. ↑ Interest statistics of the Deutsche Bundesbank. (PDF) (No longer available online.) Archived from the original on January 11, 2017 ; accessed on January 11, 2017 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bundesbank.de
  35. ↑ BGH, judgment of January 12, 2016 Az. XI ZR 366/15, full text .
  36. ↑ Chronicle of the credit revocation of the Stiftung Warentest. Retrieved March 4, 2017 .