OGH 26.11.2025, 3 Ob 77/25g: Transparency of Clauses Regarding Loan Processing Fees

1. Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs took out a mortgage loan with the defendant bank. The loan agreement provided for a processing fee as well as other one-time costs. According to an addendum to the agreement, the one-time costs consisted of registration fees, property inspection fees, and escrow processing fees. The plaintiffs demanded a refund of the processing fee, arguing that the clause regarding the loan processing fee did not make it clear what the fee was charged for or whether it overlapped with the items included in the one-time costs.

2. Legal Opinion of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court found the clause regarding the loan processing fee to be transparent. It specified two fee categories that were clearly distinguished from one another in the wording (processing fee and one-time costs). It would be clear to an average, reasonably informed, and reasonable consumer that the processing fee covers the general expenses associated with any loan origination, while the itemized components of the one-time costs relate to typical expenses associated with mortgage-backed loans. It is also clearly evident that both fees compensate the bank for different services, can be clearly assigned, and are not charged twice.

The Supreme Court also held that the activities covered by the processing fee are part of the bank’s contractual obligations toward the customer. Accordingly, the fee is not a payment for services rendered, but rather reimbursement for expenses.

3. Conclusion

The mere fact that a clause regarding a loan processing fee does not specify the particular service provided does not in itself constitute a lack of transparency.