Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (OLG Stuttgart, Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart) has dismissed a homeowner’s appeal against a judgment of Landgericht Ravensburg (Regional Court of Ravensburg) (OLG Stuttgart, judgment of 3 November 2026 – 6 U 50/26). In the view of the 6th Civil Senate, the 20-year lease for a photovoltaic system is not to be treated as a consumer credit agreement, despite the subsequent option to purchase it for one euro.
Lease for a photovoltaic system and battery storage unit
The defendant had installed a photovoltaic system, including a battery storage unit, at the claimant’s home and leased the system to him for a term of 20 years. At the end of the contract, the claimant may purchase the system for one euro.
If he decides against purchasing it, the defendant is to dismantle the system. Its standard terms and conditions already provide for a flat fee of EUR 2,500 net for this purpose. A further clause in the standard terms and conditions stipulates liquidated damages in the event that the defendant terminates the contract due to a breach of contract by the claimant.
According to the statement issued by OLG Stuttgart, several parallel proceedings concerning comparable contractual arrangements are pending before courts in Germany.
Claimant sought a reduction in monthly instalments
Purchase option as a de facto obligation to purchase
The claimant sought a reduction in his monthly payment obligation. He argued that the lease had to be treated as a consumer credit agreement. From an economic perspective, purchasing the system for one euro at the end of the contractual term was the only reasonable option. He was therefore, in effect, obliged to purchase it.
According to his argument, the contractual arrangement was equivalent to an instalment purchase agreement. The interest included in the payments was calculated by deducting the system’s market price from the total amount of all instalments. Because the contract did not expressly state the interest rate, both the interest and the monthly instalment had to be reduced. According to the claimant’s submissions, this would have reduced the monthly instalment to approximately half its original amount. The amount at issue through to the end of the contract was approximately EUR 29,000.
Landgericht Ravensburg had dismissed the action. The claimant appealed against that judgment.
OLG Stuttgart rejects application of consumer credit law
Contract does not establish an obligation to purchase
The 6th Civil Senate upheld the Regional Court’s decision. The protective provisions applicable to consumer credit agreements apply to the supply of an item for consideration only in the cases provided for by law.
In the version applicable to the contract, § 506 Abs. 2 BGB (German Civil Code) covers, in particular, agreements under which:
- the consumer is obliged to purchase the item supplied,
- the trader may require the consumer to purchase the item, or
- the consumer is liable for a specified value of the item at the end of the contract.
According to the decision, the contract at issue does not satisfy these requirements. Although the claimant has the right to purchase the photovoltaic system after the lease term expires, he is under no contractual obligation to exercise this purchase option.
Economic attractiveness of purchase is not sufficient
The Senate also found that the contractual arrangement did not circumvent the consumer protection provisions. The decisive factor was not whether, based on the anticipated course of events, the purchase would probably prove to be the most economically advantageous option.
Instead, the relevant issue was whether the consumer retained freedom of choice if circumstances developed differently during the 20-year term than anticipated. The claimant could, for example, subsequently decide to use a different solar installation or no solar installation at all.
A person contractually obliged to purchase the system would also have to accept it in such circumstances. By contrast, the claimant could decide not to purchase it.
Dismantling fee does not eliminate freedom of choice
In the view of OLG Stuttgart, the net dismantling fee of EUR 2,500 stipulated in the event of non-purchase did not lead to a different conclusion. As the lessee, the claimant would in any event have to bear the dismantling costs.
Moreover, the fee was not so high as to deprive him of the option of deciding against purchasing the system for compelling reasons. It did not turn the purchase option into an obligation to purchase.
Validity of clauses in the standard terms and conditions remained unresolved
The Senate did not decide whether the clauses concerning the dismantling fee and liquidated damages in the event of termination were valid. The claimant’s applications for declaratory relief concerning these clauses were inadmissible.
The dismissal of the appeal therefore does not contain a substantive assessment of these two provisions in the standard terms and conditions. The proceedings at first instance were conducted before Landgericht Ravensburg under case no. 9 O 192/25.
Legislative amendment will cover mere purchase options in future
New rules from 20 November 2026
The legal classification of comparable contracts will change for new agreements. From 20 November 2026, newly concluded contracts that merely provide for a purchase option will also be covered.
According to the Senate’s decision, this amendment has no effect on the pre-existing contract assessed by OLG Stuttgart. The legislative materials indicated neither that the previous version had inadvertently been incomplete nor that a mere purchase option constituted circumvention of the previous provisions. Rather, the legislature itself assumed that such contracts had not previously been covered by the relevant statutory requirements.
In addition to the BGB, the implementing act also amends the EGBGB (Introductory Act to the German Civil Code). Among other things, it provides that text form will in future be sufficient for concluding general consumer credit agreements.
Transitional provision of the European directive
The underlying Directive (EU) 2023/2225 does not generally apply to credit agreements already in existence on 20 November 2026. Only certain provisions continue to apply to pre-existing agreements of indefinite duration. The previous legal framework therefore remains applicable to the existing contract assessed by OLG Stuttgart.
Distinguishing between a lease and financial accommodation
The decision makes clear that an economically attractive purchase option does not, in itself, establish a contractual obligation to purchase. For classification under § 506 BGB in the version applicable to the pre-existing contract, the determining factor is which obligations the agreement actually establishes. The mere expectation that the purchase will prove advantageous at the end of the lease term is not sufficient.
For legal issues relating to the classification of long-term lease, usage and option models, MTR Legal advises companies, investors and private individuals as part of its contract law advisory services.
