On Reclaiming Loan Processing Fees (Bearbeitungsgebühr)

One of the most widely debated issues in the Austrian lending market in recent years, and particularly in recent months, has been the question of the Kreditbearbeitungsgebühr or Kreditbearbeitungsentgelt (loan processing fee / loan processing charge), i.e. the reimbursement of the one-off loan processing fee charged when a loan agreement is concluded.

For some time, considerable legal uncertainty has developed around the issue, because the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH) has examined different contractual structures in several cases. As a result, no simple rule has emerged under which every loan processing fee would automatically be regarded as unlawful. Instead, the case law has gradually highlighted factors such as the transparency of the fee clause, the actual service underlying it, the bank's justifiable expenditure, any potentially overlapping fee items, and the proportionality of the amount charged.

A practical response to this uncertain situation was ultimately provided by the agreement concluded in August 2026 between the Bundesarbeitskammer (Federal Chamber of Labour), Erste Bank Österreich, s Bausparkasse and numerous Austrian Sparkassen (savings banks), which created a standardised out-of-court reimbursement option for certain consumer loan agreements. The agreement therefore does not establish that loan processing fees are generally unlawful, but rather regulates the conditions and amount of reimbursement for a specific group of customers.

Why has the Kreditbearbeitungsgebühr become controversial?

Setting up a loan involves actual work and therefore upfront costs for the bank. Preparing financing includes, among other things, creditworthiness checks, document reviews, credit assessment, collateral assessment, preparation of contracts, internal approval processes, disbursement administration and, in the case of real estate financing, property valuation.

The current legal dispute is therefore not about whether a bank may charge money for processing a loan, but rather about what specific service it charges for, how much it charges, whether this can be clearly identified from the contract, and whether the same activity is being charged more than once under different fee items.

Two particularly important requirements have come to the forefront in the relevant case law of the OGH which the banking sector must satisfy: transparency and proportionality.

The most significant OGH cases to date

In 7 Ob 169/24i, a processing fee amounting to 1.5% of the loan amount and subject to no upper limit was examined. The OGH found problematic a structure under which the fee automatically increased together with the amount of the loan, even though this did not necessarily require a correspondingly greater actual effort on the part of the bank.

The case 2 Ob 52/25y further refined the picture. In this case, the OGH made it clear that a loan processing fee is not prohibited in itself, provided that the contract clearly identifies the specific activities covered by the fee — for example, processing the loan application, carrying out the creditworthiness assessment, or preparing the loan documentation — and provided that these activities are clearly distinguishable from other cost items, BUT only as long as the amount charged does not manifestly exceed the justifiable expenditure involved.

This approach was further reinforced in 5 Ob 184/25g, in which the OGH considered it necessary to examine the actual amount of work involved and, in particular, the corresponding market-based personnel costs and hourly rates in order to determine whether the fee charged manifestly exceeded the bank's justifiable expenditure.

Taken together, these cases indicate that the legality of a loan processing fee depends on the specific contractual structure. Fee clauses that are non-transparent, combine several cost elements, or are not reasonably proportionate to the actual service provided may therefore be open to legally well-founded challenge.

A brief digression: the economic background of the system

When assessing loan processing fees, it is also worth briefly considering the economic side of financing.

The bank typically bears the costs of setting up the loan at the beginning of the term, while the income generated by the financing is realised only later and gradually. Behind the capital advanced, the bank also has refinancing, liquidity, capital and risk costs. In addition to these and other cost components, the interest rate charged on the loan also includes the bank's interest margin, which is realised gradually over the term.

If the customer repays the loan partially or in full before maturity, this may cause a direct economic disadvantage to the bank. Vorfälligkeitsentschädigung (prepayment compensation / early repayment compensation) may serve to provide objectively justified compensation for such disadvantage.

Under the current HIKrG — Hypothekar- und Immobilienkreditgesetz (Austrian Mortgage and Real Estate Credit Act), its upper limit is generally 1% of the amount repaid early, or 0.5% where less than one year remains until maturity. In certain cases — for example, where the loan carries a variable interest rate or for annual early repayments of up to EUR 10,000 — no compensation may be charged.

From 2027, for newly concluded loans falling under the HIKrG, the statutory upper limit applicable where more than one year remains until maturity will increase to 3%, provided that an entitlement to compensation exists in the first place.

It is therefore interesting that, while the legislator is giving banks greater scope to compensate for actual losses arising from early repayment, the OGH's case law is increasingly demanding transparency and proportionality in relation to loan processing fees. The two types of fee are legally separate issues, but together they illustrate well how the regulatory framework seeks to strike a balance between consumer protection and the actual costs of providing financing.

What did the 2026 Erste Bank–Sparkassen agreement change?

The practical significance of the agreement concluded in August 2026 lies primarily in the fact that it provides affected customers with a standardised out-of-court reimbursement procedure. As a result, customers who satisfy the relevant conditions do not have to prove in separate legal proceedings in every individual case that the clause under which the loan processing fee was previously charged was unlawful.

The settlement applies to certain consumer loans issued by Erste Bank Österreich, sBausparkasse and the participating Sparkassen.

These may include consumer loans, residential and real estate financing, mortgage loans, certain bridging financing arrangements such as Baugirokonten (construction-related current account / bridging financing facilities), as well as sBausparkasse loans where a one-off Darlehensbereitstellungsgebühr (loan provision fee) or Bearbeitungsentgelt(processing charge) was charged when the agreement was concluded.

Unfortunately, the settlement does not apply to business or commercial loans (Kommerzkredite).

A condition for reimbursement is that the loan processing fee charged amounted to at least 0.5% of the loan amount. This threshold applies to both consumer loans and real estate loans.

Cases that do not fall within the precise conditions of the agreement — for example, individually agreed fees or agreements with other banks — may still require separate assessment.

How much reimbursement may be available?

For consumer loans, the agreement provides for reimbursement of 90% of the loan processing fee paid.

For residential and real estate financing, the amount reimbursed depends on the amount of the Bearbeitungsentgelt(processing charge) originally paid:

EUR 3,000 or more – 80%
EUR 1,500–2,999.99 – 75%
EUR 1,000–1,499.99 – 60%
Below EUR 1,000 – 35%

(The requirement that the fee amounted to at least 0.5% of the loan amount also applies in these cases.)

It is important that the reimbursement percentages above apply exclusively to amounts charged in the agreement as a one-off Kreditbearbeitungsgebühr (loan processing fee), Bearbeitungsentgelt (processing charge) or Darlehensbereitstellungsgebühr (loan provision fee).

For brokered residential and real estate loans where the intermediary did not invoice the customer directly but instead received commission from part of the fee charged by the bank, a separate fixed reimbursement applies instead of the percentage-based reimbursement rates above: depending on the amount of the Bearbeitungsentgelt originally charged, EUR 225, EUR 375, EUR 525 or EUR 750.

Older loans – can reimbursement still be available? – Yes!

One particularly significant feature of the Erste/Sparkassen agreement is that contracts dating back as far as 30 years may also be submitted, and it is not a requirement that the loan is still outstanding.

If the loan had already been fully repaid before 1 January 2019, the loan agreement or a copy of it may be required. However, if the customer no longer has it, a copy of the agreement can be requested free of charge from the participating Sparkasse.

Claims under the settlement may be submitted until 31 July 2027.

What other costs does the settlement cover?

The agreement does not relate exclusively to the item described as Kreditbearbeitungsgebühr.

It is worth examining together the contractual basis for the Bearbeitungsentgelt (processing charge), Bearbeitungsspesen (processing expenses), Krediteröffnungsentgelt (loan opening fee), Schätzgebühr (valuation fee), Liegenschaftsbewertung (property valuation), Sicherheitenprüfung (collateral assessment), Grundbuchsüberprüfung(Land Register review) and other one-off bank charges connected with the preparation and processing of the financing.

It is important that by accepting reimbursement, several additional charges connected with establishing the loan may also be regarded as settled, including in particular charges relating to Krediteröffnung (opening or establishing the loan), collateral assessment, property valuation and certain services connected with the Grundbuch (Austrian Land Register).

This is important because, particularly in older contracts, the costs involved in establishing the loan were often shown under several different descriptions. Before submitting a reimbursement claim, it is therefore not sufficient to examine only the line described as "Bearbeitungsgebühr".

The essential issue is therefore not simply the name of the charge, but what service stood behind each individual fee and whether there is substantive overlap between them.

The cost of a Löschungsquittung may be separately reclaimable

Another, partly related issue concerns the fee for a grundbuchsfähige Löschungsquittung (a discharge receipt in a form suitable for registration in the Land Register) or Löschungsurkunde (mortgage discharge document).

This is the bank declaration that may be required after a mortgage loan has been fully repaid in order for the bank's mortgage to be deleted from the Grundbuch (Austrian Land Register).

The OGH has clearly held that the cost of issuing the Löschungsquittung must be borne by the lender.

The cost of the necessary certification was not separately decided in the particular case concerned; according to the Arbeiterkammer (AK), however, previous case law indicates that this cost should also be borne by the bank.

For such fees that have already been paid, the Arbeiterkammer provides a separate template for requesting reimbursement.

Importantly, this is a claim in addition to the reimbursement available under the Erste/Sparkassen settlement and must therefore be pursued separately where necessary.

What about other Austrian banks?

The agreement between Erste Bank and the Sparkassen is not a general rule applicable throughout the Austrian banking sector, so for other banks the specific contractual structure must still be examined individually.

In recent years, court decisions and various reimbursement arrangements have also arisen in connection with BAWAG/Easybank, Santander and WSK Bank, while in the case of other banks — such as UniCredit Bank Austria— there is currently no general reimbursement procedure equivalent to the Erste/Sparkassen system that applies to all customers.

The Arbeiterkammer already provides a general Musterbrief (template letter) for reclaiming loan processing fees; the link is provided at the end of the article.

What should be checked in a specific loan agreement?

When reviewing a loan, the most important document is the loan agreement itself and its complete cost structure.

In addition to the names of the various charges, it is worth reviewing the ESIS form provided when the financing was arranged, or the equivalent preliminary credit information provided at the time, the cost of the property valuation, and also what other one-off costs were deducted or separately invoiced when the financing was established.

In the case of older financing arrangements, the fact that the loan has since been fully repaid or refinanced with another bank does not in itself exclude the possibility of a claim.

What does all this mean in practice?

Under the current practice, a loan processing fee is still not unlawful in itself, but neither does it automatically become lawful simply because it appears in the agreement.

It is also important to recognise that a significant proportion of the fees now being disputed originate from banking practices that were previously widespread, and whose legal assessment has been progressively clarified and tightened by the OGH in recent years, particularly with regard to transparency and proportionality.

In doubtful cases, it is therefore certainly worth examining the possibility of reclaiming such fees, for which we seek to provide assistance through the links and templates below.

This article is intended for general professional information only and does not constitute individual legal advice. The possibility of reimbursement will always depend on the specific loan agreement, the legal status of the customer, the structure of the fees and, where relevant, the intermediary arrangement.

Reimbursement, template documents and professional sources

Erste Bank / Sparkassen: official reimbursement portal
https://www.sparkasse.at/kredit-bearbeitungsgebuehr

sBausparkasse: official reimbursement portal
https://www.sbausparkasse.at/kredit-bearbeitungsgebuehr

Arbeiterkammer: general template for reclaiming loan processing fees
https://stmk.arbeiterkammer.at/service/musterbriefeundformulare/konsumentenschutz/reklamation/Rueckforderung-von-Kreditbearbeitungsgebuehren.html

Arbeiterkammer: reclaiming the cost of a Löschungsquittung / Löschungsurkunde
https://www.arbeiterkammer.at/service/musterbriefe/sonstige/Unzulaessige-Ausstellung-einer-Loeschungsquittung.html

Arbeiterkammer: BAWAG / Easybank
https://www.arbeiterkammer.at/beratung/konsument/Geld/kreditkosten/BAWAG-Geld-zurueck-fuer-unzulaessige-Gebuehren.html

Arbeiterkammer: UniCredit – Bank Austria
https://www.arbeiterkammer.at/beratung/konsument/Geld/kreditkosten/Kreditbearbeitungsgebuehren-UniCredit-Bank-Austria.html

Arbeiterkammer: WSK Bank
https://wien.arbeiterkammer.at/beratung/konsumentenschutz/geld/kredite/AK-Erfolg-gegen-WSK-Bank.html

Arbeiterkammer: Santander
https://www.arbeiterkammer.at/beratung/konsument/Geld/Kredite/Santander-zahlt--Gebuehren-zurueck.html

Arbeiterkammer – central overview of current bank reimbursement cases
https://www.arbeiterkammer.at/beratung/konsument/Geld/kreditkosten/index.html