BGH: Savings banks must pay less interest than demanded
Already in 2004, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decided that Sparkassen cannot arbitrarily change interest rates for premium savings contracts. The hopes for large interest payouts from consumers are now put to an end by the highest German court. However, the banks and savings institutions still have to pay 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 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 were 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.
Already in 2004, the BGH had first decided 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. This was confirmed by the BGH in later decisions.
Demanded sliding average interest rate
In the now decided cases, it was about the reference interest rate, to which the premium savings contracts should refer. 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 securities traded on the stock exchange with a remaining term of 8 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 to mortgage-backed securities and their average yield of the past ten years. So speculative elements and outliers would be excluded, argued their lawyer before the court - abrupt interest rate adjustments, for example due to debt crises, would be dampened.
If the reference interest rate were calculated in this way, the affected customers could presumably calculate with higher repayments. However, the BGH did not want to deviate from the decisions of the Oberlandesgerichte and decided against the consumer central organizations.
The consumer central organizations 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 "significant amounts" for the customers. Nationwide, the consumer central association calculates with several thousand affected persons.
Satisfied with legal security
Also satisfied with the legal security was Carsten Biesok, Legal Director of the Sparkasse Dresden. He emphasized that his savings bank had already reached more than half of the affected customers in settlements. The effects of the judgment on the Dresden Institution were therefore rather minor.
The consumer portal "Finanztip" recommends affected customers, but not to panic and above all, to refrain from 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 limitation period for demands expires. Affected parties should therefore contact a mediation body in this case to prevent the expiration of the claims.
- The Consumer Central Federation and Consumer Central Saxony appealed to the Federal Court of Justice, arguing that the interest rates for premium savings contracts were based on domestic securities with a remaining term of 8 to 12 years.
- The consumer protection organizations demanded a 'sliding average interest rate' that would reference mortgage-backed securities and their average yield of the past ten years, aiming to exclude speculative elements and outliers.
- Despite the consumer organizations' request, the Federal Court of Justice did not deviate from the decisions of the higher regional courts and maintained that banks and savings institutions could not unilaterally determine variable interest rates.
- Financial advisors might recommend affected consumers to contact their banks for a recalculation of interest rates, using a provided template letter, as claims may expire within three years after cancellation.
