Authors
Philip Hoflehner

MMag. Philip Hoflehner

Partner

Read More
Philipp Michael Bunzl

Mag.iur. Philipp Michael Bunzl

Associate

Read More
Authors
Philip Hoflehner

MMag. Philip Hoflehner

Partner

Read More
Philipp Michael Bunzl

Mag.iur. Philipp Michael Bunzl

Associate

Read More

10 March 2020

Lending Focus - March 2020 – 2 of 7 Insights

Austrian banking secrecy

  • QUICK READ

Background

Historically, banking secrecy has been sacrosanct in Austria. It is a popular subject of public discussion and a prominent issue during election campaigns – politicians have discredited their opponents very effectively by the mere suggestion that they intend to dismantle banking secrecy laws.

The Austrian Banking Act

Under s 38 of the Austrian Banking Act, the following parties are not permitted to disclose to third parties or exploit any secrets that have been entrusted or made accessible to them exclusively on the basis of business relations with customers:

  • credit institutions and their shareholders
  • board members
  • employees, and
  • other persons working for credit institutions.

'Third parties' even includes state institutions.

Although banking secrecy laws have been considerably diluted since 1 October 2016 with regard to the disclosure of information to the tax and revenue authorities, there are only a few exceptions to this principle of any practical relevance. The passing-on of information is permitted, for example, within the scope of criminal proceedings, for the clarification of legal matters arising from the relationship between the bank and the customer, and when the customer expressly agrees to the disclosure of the secret in writing.

Case law

A recent decision of the Austrian Supreme Court is a good illustration of the power and reach of banking secrecy laws. Here, a credit insurer compensated an insured bank for a non-performing loan and the bank transferred the loan repayment claim to the insurer in accordance with the insurance contract.

The insurer subsequently sued the borrower for repayment of the loan value. The various lower courts and finally the Supreme Court decided that the claim had not been validly transferred. A transfer necessarily involves the disclosure of important information about the debtor, and banking secrecy prohibits such transfer.

The reasoning behind the decision can be applied to any type of transfer of the bank's claims to a third party (eg to a factoring company, a corporate guarantor connected to the bank etc). Only the bank client's valid consent can enable the transfer of the repayment claim.

Solutions

An earlier Supreme Court decision suggests that client approval should be included in the loan agreement itself. It is therefore crucial to include an appropriate release from banking secrecy requirements in the underlying loan agreement.

Another (more costly) way of dealing with banking secrecy could be to shift the burdens of collateralisation and realisation onto the customer. For example, the bank could require the client to take out credit default insurance. The former could then take recourse against the latter without violating Austrian banking secrecy.

In this series

Real estate finance

Care homes, longevity and the real estate finance market

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS

by Multiple authors

Banking & finance

Mercury rises over virtual completions

QUICK READ

by Andrew Seager

Banking & finance

Patent-backed debt finance

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

by Cheng Bray

Banking & finance

Legal opinions, jurisdiction clauses and Brexit

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

by Kate Bowden

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

Files
Corporate/M&A & capital markets

Zero interest rate floors in corporate lending

6 December 2018
QUICK READ

by Allan Hahn and MMag. Philip Hoflehner

Click here to find out more

Zero interest rate floors in the Austrian Supreme Court

11 June 2018

by MMag. Philip Hoflehner

Click here to find out more