Riester savings contracts: Protect yourself against unacceptable closing costs

The most important thing in brief:

• The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has declared a cost clause in the Riester contracts of the Sparkasse Günzburg-Krumbach, which was also used in the same forms by other savings banks, to be unlawful (ref. XI ZR 290/22).
• Even after this ruling, Riester providers continue to collect costs for retirement offers. The Baden-Württemberg consumer advice center is taking action against this in two cases.
• Consumers should consider their options before accepting an offer to pay a pension.

What's the problem?

If consumers take out a Riester contract and pay in money for years, they can also expect a benefit in the form of a pension. After all, a contract like this doesn't end when you retire, it just changes: you then receive a pension instead of continuing to pay in.

When the savings phase comes to an end, you will receive one or more contract offers from the provider for the retirement phase. You can find the regulations for this in your Riester contract. The annuity contract then offered is concluded by your Riester provider and the insurer. As a pensioner, you are simply the beneficiary. This contract states how high the pension will be and which insurer will pay it out.

For the conclusion of these new contracts However, savers will be charged new “closing costs” as well as “other costs and administrative costs”.. Critically check any mail from your Riester provider shortly before the start of your pension. The offers may contain costs that the provider is not allowed to charge you. Riester bank savings plans, fund savings plans and building savings contracts are affected. Riester pension insurance is not affected.

What is the legal situation?

On November 21, 2023 (Ref. XI ZR 290/22) the following clause from Sparkasse Günzburg-Krumbach was declared unlawful: “If a life annuity is agreed, the saver may be charged closing and/or brokerage costs.” Other providers such as Volksbanks, investment trusts and building societies have used other clauses, but in our opinion these have deficiencies in terms of transparency. Therefore, in our opinion, the BGH ruling can also be transferred to other contracts. Not all providers share this assessment – some are unwilling to no longer refer to the cost clause in their Riester contract:

• Volksbank Darmstadt Mainz eG: The bank refused to issue a cease and desist declaration. The Koblenz Higher Regional Court will only decide on the costs clause in the VR-RentePlus contract (ref. 2 UKl 1/24, hearing November 21, 2024).
• The DekaBank German giro headquarters issued the requested cease-and-desist declaration to the Baden-Württemberg consumer advice center on February 1, 2024 and promised to no longer refer to the following clause in the Deka-BonusRente contract: “Further costs may arise for taking out pension insurance in the sense of Section 9.”
• The Union Investment Private Fund GmbH issued the requested cease-and-desist declaration to the Baden-Württemberg consumer advice center on February 1, 2024 and promised to no longer rely on the following clause in the UniProfiRente contract: “Further costs may arise for taking out pension insurance (C.3. of the special conditions for the pension contract). .”

After the verdict became known, most providers adjusted their arguments to justify the costs demanded. Most institutions no longer deny that the contractual clause in the original pension contract, i.e. the contract you concluded years ago, could possibly be illegal due to a lack of transparency. They argue that the clause at that time does not matter because the pension offer breaks down all costs transparently. They are now relying on cost clauses in the retirement offers. Since the providers, unimpressed by the BGH decision, continue to send paid retirement offers, even though there is no legal basis for this in the pension contract, the Baden-Württemberg consumer advice center is now having this practice judicially reviewed in two cases.

• lawsuit against Sparkasse Pfullendorf-MeßkirchLG Hechingen, Az 5 O 11/24 KfH, hearing date expected on October 15, 2024
• lawsuit against the Sparkasse Schwaben-Bodensee (formerly Sparkasse Günzburg-Krumbach), LG Memmingen Az 1 HK O 1107/24, hearing date: still open

The aim is to achieve legal certainty. However, it can be assumed that these proceedings will also have to be taken to the Federal Court of Justice. It could therefore be several years before a decision is made.

In our opinion, any claims for repayment cannot expire before an outstanding supreme court decision becomes known. Regardless of this, there is a risk that repayment claims will become statute-barred after ten years at the latest. If it has been ten years since the closing costs were charged without a legal basis in your case, only an individual lawsuit can prevent the impending statute of limitations. However, we only recommend filing a lawsuit if the risk of legal costs is covered by legal protection insurance or if you are prepared to bear the cost risk. In this case, seek legal advice.

What you can do

You should pay attention to these things:

1. Review your contracts before the start of retirement. For Riester contracts, financial institutions are only allowed to charge costs that they have specifically pointed out in advance of the contract.
2. Check between whom which pension contract should be concluded. Credit institutions often conclude a contract with the insurer as a policyholder. You yourself will only be noted as the beneficiary (“insured person”). From the point of view of the consumer advice centers, you cannot be burdened with costs from a contract that your savings bank or Volksbank concludes with an insurance company, i.e. with a third party.

What is important is that you before you accept a retirement offer.

Have you not yet accepted the retirement offer? You have these options