Reimbursement Claims by Credit Institutions: Administrative Court of Frankfurt am Main Orders BaFin to Repay the Bank Levy 2011–2014
In several decisions dated September 17, 2025 (Case Nos. 7 K 3685/24.F, 7 K 3686/24.F and 7 K 3705/24.F), the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) was ordered to repay special contributions it had levied for the restructuring fund in the credit institution sector from the years 2011 to 2014. These judgments by the Administrative Court of Frankfurt am Main affect significant repayment claims concerning earlier payments made by banks and savings banks to the restructuring fund established at that time.
Background: Restructuring Fund and Bank Levy
Legal Basis and Objections
The restructuring fund for credit institutions was established in 2010 as part of measures to stabilize the financial market after the banking crisis. Credit institutions and certain financial service providers were required to make annual contributions according to the Restructuring Fund Act (RStrukturFG). The aim was to create financial reserves to be used for the restructuring and resolution of institutions across the sector in the event of a crisis.
However, there were debates from the outset regarding the legal viability of imposing these contributions, particularly concerning the allocation of authority and compatibility with EU law. In particular, the question of whether the statutory provisions met the requirements of clarity and legal certainty was disputed.
Transition to the European Banking Union
With the creation of the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) and the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) at the European level, the national special contribution ended in 2015. The funds accumulated up to that point were transferred to the cross-country fund. This subsequently raised the question of the legal settlement and handling of nationally imposed contributions.
Decisions of the Administrative Court of Frankfurt am Main
Core of the Judgments
At its core, the Administrative Court criticized BaFin’s collection of contributions for the years 2011 to 2014 because the statutory basis in the then Restructuring Fund Act was insufficiently defined due to an inadequate reference to the calculation bases in the corresponding regulation. This violated the constitutional requirement of certainty (Art. 80 para. 1 Basic Law). As a result, the contribution assessments issued on this basis were deemed unlawful.
Scope of the Repayment Obligation
As a result of the decisions, BaFin is obligated to refund the special contributions paid by the claimant credit institutions for the years at issue. The judgments affect all plaintiffs in the present proceedings but may also have substantive implications for other cases. Nevertheless, it must be noted that these are decisions from an administrative court of first instance. Appeals are permissible, so the final legal status will only be determined upon conclusion of any further legal proceedings.
Public Interest and Financial Impact
Given the high annual contribution amounts to the restructuring fund, the financial scope of the repayments is considerable. This could also indirectly affect the future design of comparable funds at both the national and European levels.
Evaluations and Current Developments
Legal Discourse on Reimbursement Claims
The decisions of the Frankfurt Administrative Court fit into the ongoing discussion about the legal admissibility of state special levies in the financial market sector and the statutory requirements for their implementation. The issue of clarity of norms and the binding nature of the executive when collecting contributions are once again emphasized.
Implications for Banks and Stakeholders
The judgments could open the possibility for numerous credit institutions that paid bank levies in the years 2011 to 2014 to assert reimbursement claims. However, it remains to be seen how the higher courts will rule on the legality of the contribution assessments issued at the time. In addition, deadlines and procedural requirements may become relevant.
Source Reference
The information is based on the published judgments of the Administrative Court of Frankfurt am Main [Case Nos. 7 K 3685/24.F, 7 K 3686/24.F, 7 K 3705/24.F] as well as generally available reporting, such as https://urteile.news/VG-Frankfurt-am-Main_7-K-368524F7-K-368624F-und-7-K-370524F_BaFin-muss-Bankenabgabe-aus-den-Jahren-2011-bis-2014-zurueckzahlen~N35400. Final legal closing of the proceedings is still pending; the presumption of innocence and the possibility of differing future case law apply.
Challenges in Legal Enforcement and Possible Perspectives
For affected credit institutions, as well as other market participants such as investors and shareholders, the further development regarding the legal validity of the first-instance judgments remains to be seen. Should BaFin file an appeal, sustainable clarity is likely only after a higher court decision.
Clarifying reimbursement claims against supervisory authorities or state bodies within the capital market and banking sector requires precise knowledge of procedural and substantive legal specifics, consideration of deadlines, and, where applicable, evolving legal foundations.
If you have further questions on this topic or require an in-depth review, the Rechtsanwalt of MTR Legal are at your disposal.
