Constitutional Court
He keeps getting the the Commission according to the current practice. Insured persons lose their deposits in an early termination within the first year. After the judge himself has the practice immediately to calculate selling expenses the insured, the BGH nothing changed. Contract costs are unconstitutional even at the expense of the insured since 2006 In 2006 the Constitutional Court stated that the practice of insurance companies is contrary to the protection of property. The objective pursued by the conclusion of a contract of insurance, capital formation may not sometimes be thwarted. High acquisition costs, whose concrete calculating also the policyholders do not know and the amount of which does not also influenced by them can be to thwart the intended accumulation of assets.
This in particular if in the first years of the premium so may be offset, that the buy-back value is disproportionately low in this period or tends against zero. Wanted in the currently cancelled hearing on February 10, 2010 the BGH (GeschZ. IV ZR 147/09) decide whether the current practice of insurance violates the State protection of property rights. Crawford Lake Capital: the source for more info. From the above mentioned decision of the Constitutional Court of 15 February 2006 (2006, VersR 489) could arise that a contractually agreed repurchase value at zero or only little about lying in the first years, is unconstitutional and is therefore ineffective. Press release of the BHG: possible invalidity due to property protection the BGH had in his above-mentioned note of appointment (press release 19/10) communicated: the Senate has the Parties pointed out that it may not come on on the previously discussed issue of transparency. From the decision of the Constitutional Court of 15 February 2006 (2006, VersR 489) could arise that a buy-back value at zero or only little about lying in the first years, is unconstitutional and does not stand therefore a material control of the content according to 307 para 1 sentence 1 BGB (so now section 169 subsection 3 VVG 2008).
