BGH Strikes Down Riester Fees

Germany’s Federal Court of Justice has ruled that certain annual Riester fees charged on building-society savings contracts are invalid. In a judgment dated 28 July 2026, the court’s eleventh civil senate found that two fee clauses used on Riester building-society contracts unfairly disadvantaged customers and cannot stand. The practical result is direct: many savers who paid these Riester fees can now ask for their money back, and providers can no longer charge them going forward.

What the Court Decided on Riester Fees

The case, filed under the reference XI ZR 83/25, concerned a so-called Jahresentgelt, an annual account fee, on Riester-Bausparverträge. These are building-society savings contracts, known in German as Wohn-Riester or Riester-Bauspar, that combine state-subsidised retirement saving with the goal of buying or building a home. The court examined two versions of the fee: 15 euros a year under an older tariff, and 24 euros a year charged during the saving phase under a newer tariff.

The judges ruled that both clauses were an unreasonable disadvantage to customers under German contract law. Their reasoning was that a building society cannot use such a fee to pass its own internal administrative costs on to savers. Managing the contract is part of the provider’s core business, the court held, and charging a separate yearly amount for it tilts the deal unfairly against the customer.

Who Brought the Case

The lawsuit was brought by the vzbv, the Federal Association of Consumer Organisations, which pursues this kind of collective action to remove unfair clauses from standard contracts. According to the BGH press release, the association had challenged the fee terms used by a building society, and the court sided with consumers on both tariffs.

The ruling fits a wider pattern in which German courts have curbed extra charges that banks and financial firms add on top of a product’s core price. It follows earlier decisions limiting various account and service fees, and it strengthens the general principle that a provider cannot invent a separate charge for work that is already part of running the contract.

Riester products themselves have long drawn criticism in Germany for being complex and, in some cases, expensive relative to the returns they deliver. The state introduced them to encourage private retirement saving through subsidies and tax advantages, and building-society versions add the goal of paying for a home. A decision that trims one of the recurring costs on these contracts is therefore significant for a product type that many savers already view with some caution.

How to Reclaim Your Riester Fees

If you hold, or once held, a Riester building-society savings contract and were charged a yearly fee, you may be able to reclaim what you paid. The first step is to check your annual statements for a Jahresentgelt or similar line item and add up the amounts deducted over the years. You then write to your building society and ask for a refund, referring to the BGH ruling of 28 July 2026.

The consumer portal Finanztip has published a template letter that savers can adapt for this purpose, which makes the request straightforward even if you are not a native German speaker. Be aware that ordinary time-limit rules can apply to older claims, so it is worth acting rather than waiting. If a provider refuses, consumer advice centres can help you press the point.

The sums involved may look small on their own, but they add up over the long life of a savings contract. Someone who paid 24 euros a year for several years could reclaim a three-figure amount, and older contracts stretch back further still. Even where the total is modest, exercising the right matters, because it holds providers to the standard the court has now set out.

What This Means for Expats Saving in Germany

For foreign residents who took out a Riester-Bauspar contract as part of their retirement or home-buying plan, this decision is a small but real win. It removes a recurring charge that quietly reduced the value of the product, and it may put a modest refund back in your account. Understanding how these state-subsidised savings plans interact with your wider finances is easier with our guide to understanding German taxes.

More broadly, the ruling is a reminder that standard-contract clauses in Germany are not the last word, and that courts regularly strike down charges that go too far. If you suspect a fee on any financial product is unfair, our overview of consumer protection laws explains your rights and where to turn. Checking your statements and asking questions costs nothing, and this Riester fees decision shows those questions can pay off.