Op-Ed: “The price of shopper rights. Financial institution compensation for early compensation in mortgage credit score contracts (VR Financial institution Ravensburg-Weingarten, C-536/22)” by Filippo Morello – Go Well being Professional

  1. Framing the case

There is no such thing as a must hassle Guido Calabresi to remind us that rights in personal legislation are prices imposed on different people. Within the context of credit score legislation, a cost-based view of debtors’ rights goes past the metaphor, since banks really pay for a shopper’s withdrawal or cancellation within the type of a misplaced transaction or a decreased revenue. The allocation of prices for early compensation follows this sample carefully: EU legislation offers debtors the suitable to repay all of the capital obtained at any time, with a discount within the whole value of the mortgage. Whether or not the discount contains greater than the unaccrued curiosity and the recurring prices because of the anticipated cost, talked about in Article 25 of Directive 2014/17/EU (Mortgage Credit score Directive, hereinafter MCD), is the basic query raised within the VR Financial institution Ravensburg-Weingarten (C-536/22) case earlier than the Court docket of Justice. The brief reply given by the Court docket of Justice on 14 March 2024 is sure; shoppers might be required to reimburse the financial institution’s lack of revenue below nationwide legislation.

  1. The contract, the dispute, German and EU legislation

Two shoppers signed a mortgage credit score settlement with VR Financial institution in Ravensburg, Germany, to purchase an condo. After one 12 months, certainly one of them is transferred to work in one other metropolis, so that they promote the condo and settle their debt by repaying the financial institution the complete principal and the compensation offered for within the contract. The compensation is calculated on the premise of the ‘asset/legal responsibility’ ratio, whereby the buyer should pay the financial institution the distinction between the curiosity not owed for the early compensation and the return it might receive by investing the cash returned early in securities with the identical maturity because the mortgage repaid, minus the executive prices not incurred because of the shorter period of the mortgage. The logic is straightforward: the decreased maturity of the mortgage deprives the financial institution of curiosity, however on the identical time, it reduces recurring prices and, above all, supplies it with speedy liquidity for reinvestment. Reportedly, the calculation on this case resulted within the shoppers paying the financial institution a compensation of round 27,000 euros on a web mortgage quantity of 236,000 euros. After repaying the capital and the compensation, the shoppers sued the financial institution for restitution of the latter, claiming that that they had not obtained enough data on the early compensation costs and that the asset/legal responsibility ratio was in breach of Article 25 of the MCD.

Earlier than the Landgericht Ravensburg, the plaintiffs argued that the German guidelines permitting banks to say such excessive compensation have been opposite to EU legislation. Particularly, § 502 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) permits the creditor, in a case such because the one at problem, the place the rate of interest is mounted, to say ‘appropriate compensation for the loss straight linked to the early compensation’. The Landgericht factors out that the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, German Supreme Court docket) considers the ‘asset/legal responsibility’ technique developed by German banks to be appropriate with § 502. Nonetheless, the referring courtroom is unclear as as to whether that is in keeping with Article 25 MCD in two respects. On the one hand, its paragraph 3 permits Member States to supply for ‘honest and goal compensation for prices straight linked to early compensation’, offered that it doesn’t impose a sanction on the buyer and doesn’t exceed the creditor’s monetary loss. Then again, paragraph 1 lays down that early compensation comes with a compulsory ‘discount within the whole value of credit score [..] consisting of the curiosity and their prices for the remaining period of the contract’. On this view, earlier than commenting on the Court docket’s ruling, it must be famous that Article 25 MCD has a transparent facial which means: the utmost threshold of the monetary loss for the aim of the financial institution’s compensation can’t be the anticipated return if the contract had been correctly carried out. The misplaced revenue should be set off in opposition to the bills saved and the early availability of the capital.

In a nutshell, the referring courtroom asks the Court docket of Justice if the German asset/legal responsibility criterion locations an excessive amount of of the loss on the shopper’s door, or, in different phrases, who should pay (probably the most) for the suitable to early compensation. Apparently, the end result is opposite to what one would count on from shopper legislation.

  1. Notion and extent of monetary loss

The primary query addressed within the judgment offers with the ancillary drawback of whether or not the associated fee allocation rule of Article 25 extends to the case of termination on distinctive grounds set forth in § 490(2), BGB. The treatment to which the 2 shoppers really resort is termination and never early compensation below §§ 500-502. Because the Advocate Basic’s Opinion makes clear (level 72), within the case of termination for distinctive causes, the buyer should repay the capital and compensate the creditor for the complete monetary loss, whereas the asset/legal responsibility ratio utilized within the case of early compensation for official curiosity entails a decrease value for the buyer. The answer for the Court docket is straightforward: the chance that customers who terminate the contract can be worse off than those that repay early justifies the appliance of Article 25 MCD in each circumstances. That is achieved with none evaluation of the totally different construction and results of the 2 cures, behind the ambiguous and unsatisfactory assertion that the Directive doesn’t have an effect on the ‘validity, formation or impact of a contract’ (recital 21; para. 28 of the judgment).

The second query asks whether or not the ‘honest and goal compensation […] for doable prices straight linked to the early compensation’ offered for in Article 25(3) of the MCD can embrace the financial institution’s lack of revenue derived from the unaccrued curiosity. The Court docket’s reasoning on this respect is basically based mostly on the literal wording of the Directive. The ‘honest and goal’ measure of compensation, the broad reference to all ‘doable prices’ and the one limitation that compensation could not represent a sanction and should not exceed the monetary loss, recommend to the Court docket that the misplaced curiosity might be recoverable from the buyer. Such a chance is intrinsically linked to one of many aims of the Directive, ‘the creation of an environment friendly and aggressive inner market in credit score agreements’ (para. 47) – particularly, to make sure that the buyer’s means to change to a distinct and extra handy financial institution through the course of the contract, the very purpose of the early compensation rule, doesn’t disproportionately have an effect on the unique financial institution. Nonetheless, this argument falls brief as a result of it avoids any evaluation of what constitutes a monetary loss – ‘lack of revenue’ – within the context of early compensation. Permitting banks to say curiosity for the whole time period of a contract that has been repaid earlier than its due date limits and probably nullifies the ‘discount within the whole value of credit score’ of Article 25(1) MCD. If paragraph 1 allocates the prices of the shorter maturity to the financial institution to the advantage of the discharging shoppers, paragraph 3 can’t be meant to permit the banks to cross on these prices in full to the buyer, leading to a de facto repeal of paragraph 1. The agreeable concept that the financial institution mustn’t bear the whole monetary burden of the buyer’s early compensation finally ends up treating a shopper proper as a incorrect, because it doesn’t handle what constitutes a ‘monetary loss’ on this context. The bounds that compensation mustn’t represent a sanction and mustn’t exceed the monetary loss are evidently too weak to keep away from such an final result.

Nonetheless, an unconvincing authorized precept could effectively result in a convincing determination in a specific case. The applying of the ‘lack of revenue’ doctrine to the asset/legal responsibility ratio upheld by the German courts, the topic of query 3, does certainly result in a reasonably affordable consequence: the German technique of calculation takes account of the banks’ losses and positive aspects pretty and allocates the prices of early compensation moderately. This doesn’t make the Court docket’s interpretation of Article 25 per se right.

Lastly, it might be identified that the asset-liability technique expressed within the contractual clause would hardly cross the transparency assessments designed by the Court docket, such because the well-known one within the Kàsler Arpad case. Underneath this doctrine, shopper contract phrases shall not solely be written in plain and intelligible language; they shall additionally permit shoppers to know the financial penalties of the clauses. Nonetheless, regardless of the buyer’s claims earlier than the nationwide courtroom, the transparency of the asset/legal responsibility ratio will not be forged into doubt earlier than the Court docket of Justice.


Filippo Morello is Analysis Fellow and Adjunct Professor in Comparative Personal Legislation on the College of Pisa. He was beforehand a Land Steiermark Fellow on the College of Graz. He holds an MJur from the College of Oxford and a Ph.D. in co-supervision from the College of Pisa, Italy, and the College of Osnabrück, Germany. His newest publication is ‘From Shopper Credit score to Shopper Credit? Deserves and Flaws of the 2008/48/EC Directive’s Reform Proposal’ in European Evaluation of Personal Legislation 4-2023 [845–870].

SUGGESTED CITATION: Morello, F.; “The price of shopper rights. Financial institution compensation for early compensation in mortgage credit score contracts (VR Financial institution Ravensburg-Weingarten, C-536/22)”, EU Legislation
Dwell, 12/04/2024, https://eulawlive.com/op-ed-the-cost-of-consumer-rights-bank-compensation-for-early-repayment-in-mortgage-credit-contracts-vr-bank-ravensburg-weingarten-c-536-22-by-filippo-morello/

Leave a Comment