Consumer loan agreements: statutory interpretation of § 497 Abs. 3 Satz 3 BGB regarding limitation periods and admission of revision

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) granted the defendant legal aid and rejected the lower court's rationale for not admitting the appeal on legal grounds, holding that the interpretation of § 497(3) sentence 3 BGB regarding the statute of limitations in consumer loan agreements was already settled by prior BGH case law; however, the court ordered the admission of the revision because the defendant raised other successful arguments concerning the statute of limitations that the appellate court had failed to address. The dispute concerned procedural costs and the admissibility of an appeal to the BGH in a civil matter involving a consumer loan, where the defendant challenged the lower court's refusal to admit revision based on an alleged need for clarification on specific legal provisions. The decisive legal basis involved the established interpretation of § 497(3) sentence 3 BGB, which the BGH determined did not present serious, yet unclarified legal questions, but rather the admission of revision was justified on other, unaddressed grounds related to the limitation period.