General Terms and Conditions of a Credit Institution (Part 2)

Apr 9, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The prior issue of the USANCEN Newsletter featured the first part of a ruling by the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH), which holds significant practical importance for specific contractual provisions. In this week’s issue, USANCEN examines the subsequent group of clauses.

Clause 2:

“Processing fee (one-off)* EUR 999.95

*This processing fee constitutes a single, non-term-related charge for the handling of the credit or loan agreement, assessment of creditworthiness, and preparation of associated documentation. The fee is non-refundable under any circumstances, including early repayment of the credit or loan amount.*

The court of first instance deemed the clause to be transparent. Conversely, the appellate court determined that the clause was subject to content control and found it to be excessively disadvantageous. The OGH upheld that the contractual provision must comply with both the requirement of transparency and the prohibition against imposing gross disadvantage.

This clause specifies processing fees totalling EUR 999.95. Since the defendant has claimed to spend an average of 20 to 23 hours on these tasks, the personnel costs alone do not seem unreasonably high.

In summary, this clause does not present significant disadvantages and is thus considered acceptable within the relevant legal framework.

Clause 8:

“A flat-rate fee may be charged for special services, tasks, or costs incurred by account or deposit holders.”

The lower courts determined that the clause was significantly disadvantageous and lacked transparency. The OGH affirmed the conclusions reached by the lower courts.

The clause is ambiguous about what constitutes ‘special services’ or ‘special work or costs incurred by an account/credit holder or depositor.’ The defendant’s distinction between items listed in the price sheet and those typically linked to granting and managing credit cannot be inferred from the clause, nor would it be clear to an average consumer. Additionally, the method used to calculate the flat-rate charge mentioned in the clause is not defined. For these reasons, the clause lacks transparency.



OGH 7 Ob 111/25m (25 February 2026)