BGH negotiates clause on costs in Riester contract
On Tuesday, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) will deal with a clause on acquisition and brokerage costs that a savings bank in Bavaria used in one of its Riester retirement provision models. A ruling could affect numerous contracts. But the devil is in the detail.
Specifically, according to the BGH, it concerns the provision: "If a life annuity is agreed, the saver may be charged acquisition and/or brokerage costs." Life annuities are supplementary pensions that are usually paid until death. In the view of the Baden-Württemberg consumer advice center, the clause is ineffective as it is not clear and comprehensible and thus unreasonably disadvantages savers contrary to the requirements of good faith.
As a spokesperson for the German Savings Banks and Giro Association explained, it is the entry into the payout phase after the savings phase that is important. Customers then instruct the savings bank to conclude an immediate (immediate annuity) or deferred annuity (payout plan) with an insurance company. "It is only in this context that costs are incurred, which the clause at issue here already points out to the customer when the savings phase is concluded." These were not incurred directly by the savings bank, but by the third-party provider.
The Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court (OLG) in Munich ruled in favor of the consumer advocates. Sparkasse Günzburg-Krumbach appealed against this decision. It is unclear whether the BGH in Karlsruhe will issue a ruling on Tuesday.
Riester contract offered nationwide
According to the consumer advice center, a large number of customers from Baden-Württemberg are affected. Sparkasse Günzburg-Krumbach had offered its Riester contract nationwide. The clause was also included in the contracts of various savings banks, it said. "In principle, however, the decision could also affect other Riester savings contracts if they also contain non-transparent clauses on the costs of transferring to pension payments."
For his part, the spokesperson for the savings banks association explained that savings banks had offered various versions of "S-Vorsorge Plus" contracts. "Ultimately, however, each savings bank designs its clauses/contracts individually, so that no general statements can be made in this respect." In the meantime, the institutions no longer offer the product. Unlike the OLG, the association does not consider the clause to be a cost clause, but rather a notice required under the Retirement Provision Contracts Certification Act.
Consequently, the assessment of what consequences a ruling could have also differs. If the BGH were to view the passage as a cost clause, the savings bank could, from the association's point of view, demand reimbursement for the costs incurred by the third-party provider.
Niels Nauhauser, Head of the Pension Provision, Banks, Loans Department at the Baden-Württemberg Consumer Advice Center, on the other hand, said: "If the BGH rules that the clause is unlawful due to a lack of transparency, it will be removed without replacement." The substantive justification would then be decisive. "According to our current legal opinion, the savings bank contractually owes an annuity payment and may not pass on costs incurred in connection with the annuity to its customers."
Source: www.dpa.com
