BGH: No higher additional interest payments by savings banks
Already in 2004, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decided that Sparkassen cannot arbitrarily change interest rates for premium savings contracts. The hopes for high interest payouts set by the highest German court are now coming to an end. However, the banks and savings institutions still have to pay out the interest.
The interest rates for so-called premium savings contracts should be able to orient themselves to the average yields of bundled federal securities traded on the stock exchange. The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe decided this on Tuesday and thus rejected higher demands from consumer protection organizations. In the specific cases, it concerned contracts of customers with the Saale Sparkasse and the Ostsächsische Sparkasse Dresden from the 90s and 2000s (Az.: XI ZR 40/23 and XI ZR 44/23).
The question was how high the repayments for consumers could be. With premium savings, which was particularly popular before 20 to 30 years ago, the paid interest was variable. How the interest rate was calculated and adjusted was not precisely described in the contracts. Therefore, it was possible for the bank to unilaterally adjust it.
In 2004, the BGH had already ruled that such clauses were invalid. For new contracts, they were changed. In October 2021, the BGH issued another fundamental judgment on older contracts. The BGH declared then that banks and savings institutions could not freely determine variable interest rates. They had to be calculable for savers and therefore had to orient themselves to one of the interest rates of the Bundesbank. The BGH confirmed this later in further decisions.
Demanded sliding average interest rate
In the now decided cases, the issue was about the reference interest rate, to which the premium savings contracts should orient themselves. The Consumer Central Federation (VZBV) and the Consumer Central Saxony had sued. According to their lawsuits, the Landesgerichte in Dresden and Naumburg based the interest rate on the yield for domestic bundled federal securities with a remaining term of eight to 15 years.
However, this was not enough for consumer protection organizations. They demanded a so-called sliding average interest rate, which would orient itself on mortgage-backed securities and their average yield of the past ten years. This would exclude speculative elements and outliers, argued their lawyer before the court - abrupt interest rate changes, for example, due to debt crises, would be dampened.
If the reference interest rate were calculated in this way, the affected customers could presumably count on higher repayments. However, the Federal Court of Justice did not want to deviate from the decisions of the Oberlandesgerichte and decided against the consumer central organizations.
These were satisfied with the judgment. "Now there is finally clarity," said Patrick Langer from the VZBV. With the now valid calculation method, there would still be "in not infrequent cases four-digit amounts" for the customers. Nationwide, the consumer central association calculates with several thousand affected persons.
Contentment with legal security
Also satisfied with the legal security expressed himself Carsten Biesok, Legal Director of the Sparkasse Dresden. He emphasized that his Sparkasse had already reached more than half of the affected customers in settlements. The effects of the judgment on the Dresden Institute were therefore rather minor.
The consumer portal "Finanztip" recommends affected customers, but advises against panicking and above all against hastily accepting offers from banks. As a first step, affected parties should request a recalculation of interest rates from their bank. Finanztip provides a new template letter for this purpose. It is important to note: If consumers do not act, their claims will expire three full years after cancellation. For contracts that ended in 2021, there is time until the end of the year before the three-year statute of limitations for demands expires. Affected parties should therefore contact a mediation center in this case to prevent the statute of limitations from running.
- Consumer protection organizations, such as the Consumer Central Federation (VZBV) and Consumer Central Saxony, had argued in front of the Federal Court of Justice that banks and savings institutions should use a sliding average interest rate to calculate premium savings interest rates, rather than the yield of domestic bundled federal securities with a remaining term of eight to 15 years.
- Banks and savings institutions, like Sparkasse Dresden, have to pay out the interest to consumers as decided by the Federal Court of Justice, despite the hopes for high interest payouts being terminated.
- The BGH (Federal Court of Justice) rejected the demand for a sliding average interest rate, as it would deviate from the decisions of the Oberlandesgerichte and would not provide legal certainty.
- In response to the court's decision, Patrick Langer from the VZBV expressed contentment with the legal security, stating that it would provide "not infrequent cases of four-digit amounts" for affected customers.
