General Terms and Conditions of a Credit Institution (Part 3)

Apr 16, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The 2 April 2026 issue of the USANCEN Newsletter featured the initial segment of a clause decision from the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH). In this edition, USANCEN will examine the subsequent two clauses.

Clause 3:

"Account management fee (for the entire loan term) EUR 678.00;"

The lower courts determined that the clause was permissible. Lump-sum fees for banking transactions, imposed on customers who initiated these activities, are deemed excessively disadvantageous only when no distinct additional service is provided and no real costs incurred.

According to recent case law from the OGH, additional charges are subject to substantive review. Lump-sum fees are not automatically inadmissible, provided that they do not grossly exceed the actual costs. However, charging fees without specific additional services or actual costs is inadmissible. In consumer credit agreements, information about fees for maintaining one or more accounts must be provided prior to the conclusion of the contract, and these fees must be clearly and concisely stated in the credit agreement.

In the present case, the account management fee is charged in order to cover the costs of various information provided by the defendant to the customers, such as the current account balance and the installment amount.

The clause is permissible, as the account management fee requested does not grossly exceed the defendant’s expenses.

Clause 7:

"Extra confirmation requested by customer: EUR 60.00 per item (e.g., tax office, account notification, statement, etc.)"

The lower courts found the clause to be significantly disadvantageous. When interpreted in a manner least favorable to the customer, the clause could even extend to straightforward confirmations that are readily generated. In such instances, the actual expenses incurred would not correspond to the fee specified by the clause.

Charging fees without an associated additional service or actual incurred costs is not permissible. The clause lacks specification that only confirmations necessitating manual intervention are subject to the stated flat rate. Interpreted in the least favorable manner for the customer, the clause could permit a EUR 60 charge for confirmations requiring no effort or generated automatically.

Therefore, the clause is deemed inadmissible.

OGH 7 Ob 111/25m (2 February 2026)