”
Federal Court of Justice decision of 28 February 2024
\n\n
In its judgment of 28 February 2024 (case no. XI ZR 252/22), the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) addressed the question of whether withdrawal information in a consumer loan agreement that is linked to a motor vehicle purchase agreement meets the statutory requirements. The subject matter of the proceedings was therefore, in particular, whether the information regarding the right of withdrawal was provided in such a way that the withdrawal period was properly triggered.
\n
Initial situation: linked agreements when purchasing a vehicle
\n
Consumer loan and motor vehicle purchase as a legal unit
\n\n
When financing a vehicle through a loan, a so-called linked transaction may exist. In such constellations, the loan agreement and the purchase agreement are economically connected; this can result in specific legal consequences for the consumer, particularly in connection with a withdrawal.
\n
Importance of the withdrawal information
\n\n
For the withdrawal period to begin, consumers must be properly informed about their right of withdrawal. In practice, the scope, content, and comprehensibility of the instruction are often disputed—for example, regarding when the period begins, what form the withdrawal must take, and what consequences a withdrawal can trigger in a linked transaction.
\n
Subject of the dispute: correctness of the instruction
\n
Objections raised by the consumer
\n\n
In the decided case, the borrower challenged the effectiveness of the withdrawal information that had been provided. The argument was aimed at the instruction not complying with the statutory requirements and that, therefore, withdrawal would still be possible at a later point in time.
\n
Standard of review applied by the BGH
\n\n
The BGH focused on whether the withdrawal information contained the details required by law and whether it was designed in such a way that an average consumer can recognize and exercise the right of withdrawal. It was also decisive to what extent the lender adhered to the statutory model text or the design requirements provided for this purpose.
\n
Key statements of the decision
\n
Proper information despite the linked-transaction constellation
\n\n
According to the BGH’s decision, the withdrawal information in the specific agreement met the requirements. This meant that the withdrawal period had been triggered; a withdrawal declared later could no longer be based on a continuing possibility to withdraw.
\n
Statutory structure and reference to the model
\n\n
The BGH placed the instruction within the statutory structure and addressed the question of which details are required in withdrawal information for linked agreements. This also involved whether the wording and cross-references used are, in the final analysis, sufficiently clear and substantively correspond to the mandatory information provided for.
\n
Classification for contractual drafting practice
\n
Relevance for credit-financed vehicle transactions
\n\n
The decision confirms that withdrawal information in linked motor vehicle financings can meet the statutory requirements, even though in practice their clarity and completeness are often disputed. Whether this applies in the individual case depends on the specific contractual documentation and the instruction texts used.
\n
Importance of the contractual documents in their overall context
\n\n
For the legal assessment, the documentation as a whole is regularly decisive: the loan agreement, mandatory information, cross-references, notes on the start of the period and the consequences of withdrawal, as well as any supplementary annexes. The BGH clarified the review approach under which these details are to be assessed in conjunction.
\n
Note on the status of the proceedings and the sources
\n\n
The above information is based on the published decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 28 February 2024 (case no. XI ZR 252/22) as well as the accessible reporting on it, inter alia available at: https://urteile.news/BGH_XI-ZR-2522_Widerrufsinformationen-in-mit-einem-Kfz-Kaufvertrag-verbundenem-Verbraucherdarlehensvertrag-ordnungsgemaess~N33779. No further assessment of facts is made.
\n
Points of reference for legal clarification
\n\n
Especially with financings in connection with vehicle purchases, questions frequently arise regarding the design of mandatory information, the classification of linked agreements, and the resulting legal effects. MTR Legal attorneys advise companies, investors, and high-net-worth private individuals in assessing corresponding constellations and in the legal evaluation of contractual documentation. Further information on legal advice in banking law can be found on the MTR Legal website.
“
