Federal Court of Justice: Request inadmissible bank fees: BGH clarifies limitation period

Federal Court of Justice: Request inadmissible bank fees: BGH clarifies limitation period

Federal Court of Justice
Request inadmissible bank fees: BGH clarifies the statute of limitations






For years, banks and savings banks raised illegal fees. After a BGH judgment four years ago, many customers were able to reclaim money. Now the limitation period has also been clarified.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has clarified how long bank customers can reclaim inadmissibly raised account fees. The regular civil senate in Karlsruhe said that the regular limitation period of three years from the end of the year in which the claim arose. It does not matter when the customers learned about the ineffectiveness of the corresponding clauses.

The BGH judged a model declaratory action by the Federal Association of Consumer Centers against the Berlin Sparkasse. There was a so -called approval fiction clause in the general terms and conditions of the Sparkasse. After that, the consent of the customers to change account fees was granted if they did not object within a certain period. Such clauses used to be with many banks and savings banks. In 2021, however, the BGH clarified in a judgment that this regulation is ineffective.

Right to money back – but how long?

As a result of the decision at the time, many bank customers were able to demand too much paid fees. At first, however, it remained open when the claims for repayment expire. The consumer center wanted to enforce in court that the limitation period of three years only begins when consumers experienced the ineffectiveness of the clause – at the earliest with the judgment 2021.

The BGH did not follow this view. Knowledge of consumers from the ineffectiveness of the approval fiction clause is not necessary to start the limitation course. Because there was no uncertain legal situation on the effectiveness of these clauses. Consumers could therefore have filed a lawsuit before the fundamental judgment of the BGH in 2021. It is crucial when the claims arose. (Az. XI ZR 45/24)

dpa

Source: Stern

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts