Decision of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt am Main on the Permissibility of Annual Fees for Riester Home Savings Contracts
The Higher Regional Court Frankfurt am Main had to address the central question in proceedings 17 U 190/23 of whether annual fees charged in connection with Riester home savings contracts comply with the applicable legal requirements. The dispute concerned the practice—challenged by a consumer protection center—of levying an annual fee related to a Riester home savings contract. The suing consumer protection organization argued that such a fee contradicted relevant regulations, particularly those contained in the subsidization guidelines for Riester products.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
In the specific case, the provider of a Riester home savings contract had included an annual fee in its General Terms and Conditions for Home Savings. This clause prompted the plaintiff to bring an action for an injunction against the financial institution. The court of first instance (Regional Court) had already made an assessment, which was subsequently reviewed on appeal by the OLG.
Assessment by the OLG Frankfurt am Main
The OLG Frankfurt am Main dismissed the consumer center’s appeal and—contrary to the plaintiff’s view—confirmed the permissibility of annual fees also in Riester home savings contracts. In its reasoning, the court held that charging a recurring annual fee does not violate the applicable civil or supervisory law provisions. The judges explained that the annual fee is part of the principal contractual service and is therefore largely exempt from content control under § 307 of the German Civil Code (BGB).
Relevant Legal Foundations and Delimitation
The Senate’s central argument was the classification of the annual fee as a charge for the central administration and management of the contract within the scope of the Riester home savings contract. Furthermore, it was stated that neither the provisions of the Act on the Certification of Retirement Savings Contracts (AltZertG) nor those of the implementing regulation (AltZertG-DV) expressly prohibit ongoing administrative fees. The court emphasized that the legislator, in the area of subsidies, had not enacted a final regulation excluding administrative fees, and that contractual freedom basically continues to apply—even for state-supported products.
Specific Standards for Content Review
The OLG placed particular emphasis on the requirements for transparency of the clauses used. In the court’s view, the annual fee was indicated in the home savings terms clearly and comprehensibly. No unreasonable disadvantage was found by the judges. Both the amount and the regularity of the charged fee were designed to be understandable for the contractual parties and contained no abusive elements.
Significance of the Decision and Further Course
The decision of the OLG Frankfurt am Main is not yet legally binding. It remains to be seen whether the Federal Court of Justice will review the matter. Until a final ruling by the highest court, the existing legal uncertainty regarding comparable clauses in Riester home savings contracts persists. (Source: OLG Frankfurt am Main, judgment of August 2, 2023 – 17 U 190/23)
Legal Classification and Outlook
The decision emphasizes the substantive and methodological requirements for fee clauses in the context of state-subsidized retirement provision products. Companies and investors involved in drafting contractual frameworks for Riester home savings contracts are well advised to closely observe the current legal situation and possible developments in supreme court rulings.
For more detailed questions regarding the legal drafting, examination, and enforcement of contractual terms in banking and related regulatory matters, MTR Legal Attorneys offers well-founded support. You can find an initial overview of banking law advice under Legal Advice in Banking Law.
