Source: http://www.europe-eje.eu/en/fiche-thematique/trad-note-4-pfaendung-unkoerperlichen-beweglichen-vermoegensgegenstaenden-rechtsanw
Timestamp: 2020-07-08 23:54:38
Document Index: 276531754

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 1455', 'art. 1403', '§ 1', 'art. 1452', 'art. 1452', 'art. 1543', 'art. 1543', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 5']

Home › Fiches EJE › Belgium › E-note 4 – The attachment of incorporeal movables (Professional E-note)
The attachment of intangible property (also called garnishment) is a procedure through which a creditor may obtain possession of dematerialised property that makes up his debtor's assets; as opposed to the tangible assets that may be the subject of a standard garnishment (please refer to note no. 3 with regard to the latter point).
The term "dematerialised assets" shall refer to any element of an asset nature that may be physically apprehended.
By way of a general introductory remark, we would like to draw the reader's attention to the fact that only executory attachment of intangible assets shall be dealt with primarily in the case in question.
In other words, it is a question of attaching assets that are held by a third-party but which actually already belong to the assets of the pursued debtor if the third-party is in turn the debtor's debtor. In other words, the garnishee must be the attachment creditor's debtor and the third-party/garnishee's creditor.
E.g.: Attachment of an employee (garnishee)'s salary by the latter's employer (third-party/garnishee) paid to the creditor (attachment creditor).
However, the effects of the garnishment will be different depending on whether it concerns debts or tangible or intangible property: in the first example, the garnishment reaches its final stage when the attachment creditor is attributed sums that the garnishee is owed by the third-party/garnishee; in the second example, it leads to the sale of the garnishee's property that is in the possession of the third-party/garnishee and the payment of the attachment creditor using the proceeds from their realisation.
Thus, the third-party/garnishee cannot legitimately off-load his responsibility onto the garnishee, or even make a payment to one of the garnishee's other creditors. The third-party/garnishee also cannot offset this debt towards the garnishee with an amount receivable from the latter.
The unavailability is total, in the sense that it ties up the garnishee's entire claim and additional costs (art. 1455 of the Judicial Code). This may only be disregarded through segregation (art. 1403 of the Judicial Code).
In the event of precautionary garnishment, this may be carried out without the judge's authorisation, not only by a creditor who has an authentic right, but also merely on the basis of a simple private right and at the creditor's own risk.
Within eight days of the third-party's receipt of the document containing the garnishment, notice of this must be given, at the attachment creditor's request, to the attached debtor, by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or in a bailiff's writ (article 1457 of the Judicial Code).
If the third-party/garnishee fails to fulfil these obligations, he may simply be declared a debtor, either partly or fully, of the causes of the attachment (i.e. the debtor's debt) following an action brought by the creditor before the enforcement judge (article 1456 of the Judicial Code).
According to article 1539, paragraph 5 of the Judicial Code, this notice shall be solely be given in a judicial officer's writ and in addition, under pain of nullity, it shall contain the dependent child declaration form, if the attachment concerns the income referred to in articles 1409 § 1 and 1a, and 1410 of the Judicial Code.
1) For the third-party/garnishee, in so far as the writ of notice has to be presented to him at the time of payment so that he may verify the legality of the creditor's claim against the attached debtor.
This objection shall be carried out in compliance with ordinary rules, through a summons, served upon the attachment creditor at the garnishee's request, to appear before the judge of attachments who is competent for the territory concerned, i.e. the judge of the attached debtor's place of residence or the judge of the place of enforcement if the debtor is domiciled abroad or has no known residence in Belgium.
Determining of the third-party/garnishee's obligation
The third-party/garnishee's obligation is, in principle, established by their declaration, which shall be carried out in accordance with the rules and forms stipulated by the Judicial Code.
Although the initial declaration has to be given within fifteen days of the garnishment (art. 1452 of the Judicial Code), the law has not fixed any time period for any additional declaration, since this shall occur "at the request" of the attachment creditor or attached debtor.
Article 1452 of the Judicial Code specifies particulars that must contain the third-party/garnishee's declaration and which must enable a precise insight into the situation to be provided, since the declaration must be a clear and sincere explanation of the legal relationship between the garnishee and the third-party/garnishee.
(a) the third-party/garnishee admits that he is garnishee's debtor or
(b) he is not or is no longer the garnishee's debtor.
The third-party/garnishee is not, or is no longer, the garnishee's debtor
In this event, the law requires the third-party/garnishee to assert that he is not or is no longer the garnishee's debtor (art. 1452, paragraph 2, 2. of the Judicial Code). This assertion, despite its negative character, is designed to spare the attachment creditor from having to pay unnecessary procedural costs.
This obligation is justified by the fact that it is in the attachment creditor's interest to be informed of this so that he may check other creditors' claims and assess his chances of being paid.
If the third-party/garnishee's declaration is contested, his obligation shall be established by the judge competent for reconciling the dispute and, in this event, establish the existence and amount of the claim to which the third-party/garnishee is held.
If the third-party/garnishee does not comply with the divestiture obligation, he may be forced by the attachments judge to meet the attachment creditor's request (art. 1543, paragraph 1 of the Judicial Code).
The third-party/garnishee's obligation to pay shall, in the event of an objection being raised by the garnishee, be suspended until the garnishee is given notice of the decision that threw out the objection (art. 1543, paragraph 2 of the Judicial Code) "failing the effect of appeals that may be lodged against this decision".
The judicial officer shall include in his distribution by contribution procedure both the opposing creditors and all the attached debtor's creditors.
6. The third-party/garnishee's liability towards the attachment creditor
7. "Common" garnishment
In the event of garnishment executed by a judicial officer on behalf of a creditor as the "first attachment creditor", article 1543a in the Judicial Code stipulates that an opposing creditor who has an enforceable right may, if the first attachment creditor has already been given notice and without forming any subrogation claim, have the acting judicial officer proceed with the divestiture of the third-party garnishee in accordance with article 1543 of the Judicial Code.
The delegation of sums may be defined as "the judicial authorisation given to the maintenance creditor to directly obtain, to the exclusion of the debtor, under the conditions and within the limits fixed by the judgment, the debtor's revenue or any other sum owed to the latter by a third-party".
Income tax garnishment is a form of simplified garnishment in the sense that notification of the garnishment can be provided by a letter registered with the postal service by the relevant collector, and consequently it does not require the judicial officer's involvement.
2. The judicial officer's involvement
However, the judicial officer's involvement is not entirely excluded in the context of such an enforcement measure.
Pursuant to article 165 of Royal Decree 92 implementing the Income Tax Code, garnishment must be executed by a bailiff's writ, in the manner laid down by the provisions of the Judicial Code, if it appears that:
In these events, the garnishment executed by the collector shall retain its precautionary effect if the collector proceeds using a bailiff's writ, under the circumstances described above, with garnishment by the third-party in the month following the following the mailing of the objection to the owed amount provided for in article 164, § 1, paragraph 3 of Royal Decree no. 92 implementing the Income tax Code, or the declaration provided for in article 1452 of the Judicial Code.
Article 299, § 4 of the Law of 27 December 2006 "pertaining to various provisions (I)" provides that garnishment must be executed by a judicial officer's writ, in the manner laid down by the Judicial Code, when it appears that:
In these events, the garnishment executed by the collector shall retain its precautionary effects if the collector proceeds using a bailiff's writ, under the circumstances described above, with garnishment by the third-party in the month following the mailing of the objection by the convicted person or the declaration laid down in article 1452 of the Judicial Code.
Although the garnishment procedure does not, in this scenario, depart from the general procedural regime, it should be noted that the attachment creditor's status is special.
Article 232 of the Company Code stipulates that "shares and bonds may exist within private limited companies. These securities are registered. They have an order number".
However, it is recognised that statutory clauses compliant with the Company Code must in principle be respected, if the conventionally stipulated inaccessibility does not make the registered share exempt. In fact, the lack of transferability may lead to the winding up of the company at the plaintiff's request so that he is able to recover what he is owed.
It is a question of an intangible co-ownership right which is exercised "in proportion to the securities that the account holder holds out of the undivided total or the universality that is constituted by any entries in the account holder's name at the central body or other holders or accounts and the attached rights".
Paragraph 2 of article 472 stipulates that "without prejudice to the application of article 471, in the event of the insolvency of the owner of securities or in any other situation of competition, the creditors of the owner of securities may assert their rights to the available balance of securities entered into the account in the name and on behalf of their debtor, after the deduction or addition of securities which, by virtue of conditional undertakings, undertakings involving uncertain amounts or short-term undertakings, are entered, if appropriate, in a separate part of this securities account, on the day of the insolvency or administration, and whose inclusion in the available funds is deferred until the condition is realised, the amount is determined or the end of the time period is reached".
/C/ replacement income that is unavailable and inaccessible (family allowances, orphans' pensions, allowances paid to disable persons, social assistance etc.)
Therefore, this is an obligation that lies with the originator's bank to label the sums that it is paying with a special code, under penalty of criminal penalties (fines) in the event of oversight or fraud.
Therefore, the protection granted is graduated. It should be noted that there is a specific system if the protected sums are the subject of an overall payment when they relate to a duration of more than one month (e.g. compensation in lieu of notice equivalent to 3 months' salary).
It goes without saying that in this case the maintenance creditor also benefits from (see point 5/) a privileged status which enables him to disregard the applicable protective system and thus attach a current account's entire credit balance, except for certain specific amounts.
The amounts paid by the debtor's employer through a transfer or payment in cash into the debtor's current account shall be considered to be partially unavailable in accordance with the Belgian Judicial Code, unless it is proved to the contrary.
Article 1452 of the Judicial Code also specifically sets out that obligation: "The declaration must stipulate precisely all of the elements needed in order to determine the parties' rights and, as appropriate, in particular: (...) 4. If appropriate, the amounts labelled with a code that have been credited to a current account and the date of their entry if this occurred during the thirty days prior to the attachment date. ".
If this is the case, it is the bailiff who establishes the statement and who, under pain of nullity of the attachment or assignment, sends the statement to the debtor by a letter registered with the postal service with acknowledgement of receipt within 8 days of notice being given of the third-party garnishee's declaration or the one that has to be given by the assigned third-party in that instance.
Under threat of the same nullity, this registered writ given to the debtor shall be accompanied by a reply form as specified by the Crown. This form must facilitate the debtor's task if he intends to contest the statement sent to him.
If a dispute is submitted within the appropriate time period, the bailiff or creditor shall then be required to file at the registry of the court of first instance (attachments registry) a copy of the statement and standardised reply form containing the debtor's comments.
On pain of forfeiture, this filing must be completed "within 5 days of the submission, at the address stated in the reply form, of the registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, containing the debtor's comments" (article 1411-c, § 5 of the Judicial Code).
5. The third-party/garnishee or assigned third-party's obligation to pay
In the case of garnishment, this is the attachments judge for the attached debtor's place of residence.
Other information sheets Belgique