July 12, 2024, 11:30 am | Read time: 4 minutes
The long-standing legal dispute over so-called premium savings contracts has reached a crucial point. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has issued a ruling that is likely to give many bank customers hope.
According to the BGH’s decision, many banks have calculated too little interest for their customers under such premium savings contracts. The main point of contention was contracts with longer terms and flexible interest rates. Affected customers can now claim the missing money. TECHBOOK explains the details and what needs to be done.
BGH Rules on Long-Term Premium Savings Plans
Premium savings contracts with long terms were especially popular in the 1990s and 2000s. Today, they are less attractive due to interest rate developments. This is also related to the current BGH ruling. The foundation for this was laid by two model declaratory actions by the Federation of German Consumer Organizations and the Saxony Consumer Center against the Sparkasse Dresden. One of these cases involved a premium savings contract from 1997.
Those who entered into such a contract received a fairly attractive bonus at the time–and over the years, interest on their savings. The bonus is usually not paid out but added to the capital. However, these interest rates could be unilaterally adjusted by the banks to market conditions. Especially during low-interest phases, this meant that the interest rates of such contracts were sometimes reduced to as low as 0.001 percent. Consumer advocates found, after examining several thousand such contracts, that customers missed out on average four-figure sums, as reported by the “Tagesschau.”
The model declaratory action argued that such a negative development was not foreseeable when the contract was concluded. Furthermore, the unilateral adjustment was not transparent enough. The BGH has now agreed with this.
BGH Sets Reference Interest Rate
In 2021, the court issued a similar ruling. At that time, it also concerned flexible interest rates, but the calculation was left to the Dresden Higher Regional Court. This time is different. The value set by the Dresden court in 2023 was still too low for consumer advocates, which is why the case returned to the BGH. The BGH has now made a decisive ruling and confirmed the reference interest rate calculated by the Dresden court.
Affected customers will not receive as much as hoped. Nevertheless, the reference interest rate is often higher than the flexibly set rates in the corresponding premium savings plans.
Also of interest: Amazon under increased scrutiny! What does this mean for the company and customers?
Increase in Fees Unlawful! Must the Savings Bank Refund Money?
Amazon Prime Price Increase Unlawful! Is a Refund Possible?
These Savings Contracts Are Affected
The Consumer Center lists in its statement on the case several specific contracts affected by the ruling. It also notes that “in a simple savings book with a sticker and extra interest agreement,” similarly unlawful interest clauses can be found.
- Bonus Plan (Volks- und Raiffeisenbank)
- Flexible Premium Savings (Sparkasse)
- VorsorgePlus (Sparkasse)
- Vorsorgesparen (Sparkasse)
- Asset Plan (Sparkasse)
- VRFuture (Volks- und Raiffeisenbank)
- Vorsorgeplan (Sparkasse)
- Scala (Sparkasse)
This list is exemplary and does not mean that only customers of Sparkasse or Volks- und Raiffeisenbank are affected. The consumer protection announcement also includes another list broken down by federal states. Not all affected products are necessarily listed there either.
According to consumer protection, premium savings plans or “predominantly long-term savings contracts with variable interest rates concluded in the 1990s and 2000s” are generally affected. If you suspect that you have a premium savings plan affected by the BGH ruling, you should check your documents to see if a floating interest rate was agreed upon.
Customers Can Claim Money
Ramona Pop, board member of the Federation of German Consumer Organizations, said: “Now all savings banks must take action and initiate compensation on their own. Premium savers are entitled to financial compensation; they have a right to substantial back payments.”
It is also recommended to take action yourself. If you suspect this applies to you, you can request an interest calculation from your bank. This claim also applies retroactively for the entire contract term. Even after the end of such a contract, the claim is valid for three years according to the BGH. Consumer advocates had demanded a ten-year period in the lawsuit; however, the court did not comply with this.