BGH ruling on premium savings – how to secure your repayment

Because of one-sided clauses in premium savings contracts, savers are entitled to money retroactively. The Federal Court of Justice has now clarified how much.

Once a best seller – now a nuisance: For years there has been a dispute over premium savings contracts that savings banks and cooperative banks concluded with hundreds of thousands of customers. The fact that banks could unilaterally change interest rates in their favor in many cases was declared illegal by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) 20 years ago. The question of how the interest on these products should be calculated has not yet been clarified by the highest court. Now the Karlsruhe judges have provided clarity on the basis of two model lawsuits.

The interest rates on so-called premium savings contracts may be based on the average returns on listed federal securities. The Federal Court of Justice thus rejected higher demands from the consumer center. The consumer advocates considered it appropriate that the interest rates for premium savers should be based on the average returns on domestic bearer bonds.

The consumer protection organisations were also unable to prevail on the question of when claims expire. They were convinced that the limitation period could not begin before it was determined how the interest was to be calculated. The Federal Court of Justice did not share this view. Nevertheless, the consumer advice centre expressed its satisfaction in a subsequent press conference.

“The rulings issued today by the Federal Court of Justice are largely very good news for consumers. Savers are entitled to a refund,” said Ronny Jahn, head of the model declaratory action team at the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations (vzbv). It is now time for the savings banks to restore their reputation with customers.

“One thing is now very clear: the interest rates have been calculated incorrectly. We now expect the savings bank to approach savers on its own initiative,” said Andreas Eichhorst, head of the Saxony Consumer Advice Center. The lordly interest rate addition is now over.

The lawsuits mean that premium savers receive the interest that the savings banks have previously withheld from them. In other words, they get money – depending on the contract, this can be several thousand euros. However, this only applies if the premium savings contract has not yet been terminated or if the terminations were made no more than three years ago.

In a legal sense, the ruling is only binding for the two savings banks that were sued: Saalesparkasse and Ostsächsische Sparkasse Dresden (case numbers XI ZR 40/23 and XI ZR 44/23). However, since the contracts are standard savings bank products, the consumer center believes that the court's rulings also apply to premium savings contracts from other savings banks.

“We recommend that affected customers do not rush into anything and, above all, advise against hastily accepting offers from banks,” says Hermann-Josef Tenhagen, editor-in-chief of the financial advice service “Finanztip.” As a first step, those affected should request a recalculation of the interest rates from their bank. It is also important to note that “if consumers do not take action, the claims will expire three full years after termination.”

So, for example, anyone whose contract ended in 2021 still has until the end of this year to take action. “In this case, those affected should contact an arbitration board in order to prevent the statute of limitations from expiring,” advises Tenhagen.

With this product, savers receive a bonus in addition to the variable interest rate, which is usually staggered according to the contract term. The longer regular savings contributions are received, the higher the bonus. Such savings contracts were sold in the 1990s and early 2000s – primarily by savings banks (“Vorsorgesparen”, “Vermögensplan”), but also by cooperative banks (“Bonusplan”, “VRZukunft”).

For more than two decades, courts have been dealing with premium savings contracts and their interest rates. The Federal Court of Justice ruled back in 2004 that contractual clauses that allowed savings banks to reduce their interest rates at will were unlawful. Since then, there has been a dispute about how high the interest rate should have been. In 2021, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed earlier rulings that many old savings bank contracts contained inadmissible clauses.

In 2021, there were around 1.1 million premium savings contracts in Germany; the financial regulator Bafin does not have more recent figures. Since then, the number is likely to have fallen significantly because institutions – where legally possible – have terminated entire contract years. Interest payments are not automatically made on ongoing contracts. Consumer advice centers have been putting pressure on the issue for years with model declaratory actions. The Saxony Consumer Advice Center alone is conducting nine such proceedings, in which 6,000 consumers have joined.