Unseizability of Corona emergency aid.

The Cologne Regional Court fully concurred with the statements of the Cologne Local Court in the contested order and the order not to intervene.

It is true that, in substance, the debtor's application in and of itself concerned the determination of a deviating garnishment-free amount under § Section 850k (1), (2) sentence 1 no. 1 and para. 3 ZPO. However, for the case at issue, an application under § Section 850k (4) not provided for, since the Corona emergency assistance is not one of the amounts mentioned therein. In particular, the Corona emergency assistance was neither other income within the meaning of Section 850i of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) nor a one-time social benefit under § Section 850k (2) sentence 1 no. 2 ZPO.

In order to avoid undue hardship, the debtor's application was rather to be considered as an application for protection against enforcement pursuant to § 765a ZPO to understand. The Corona Emergency Aid is an after § Section 851 (1) ZPO unattachable claim, since the earmarking of the Corona Emergency Aid would prevent a seizure.

Thus, the Regional Court of Cologne states:

"In the jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Justice, in addition to the maximum personal nature of claims, the cases of earmarking have long been recognized as impediments to seizure, which prevent creditor access pursuant to § Section 851 (1) ZPO The court may exclude the possibility of a claim for compensation to the extent that it would be incompatible with the purpose of the claim, which is part of the legal content (BGH, decision of 05.11.2004 - IXa ZB 17/04 -, juris, marginal no. 10). The purpose need not be derived directly from the law, as is regularly the case, for example, with the provisions on the granting of public assistance.

It can also result from the nature of the legal relationship and, in the case of benefits under public law, also from the relevant administrative regulations replacing or interpreting the norm (BGH, judgment of 29.10.1969 - I ZR 72/67 -, juris, para. 23). According to this requirement, the Corona emergency aid - as correctly recognized by the Local Court - is to be regarded as earmarked without further ado, since it serves to secure the economic existence of the beneficiary and to bridge its current liquidity bottlenecks as a result of the Corona pandemic, as evidenced by the purpose of the benefit communicated in the notice."

In the opinion of the Cologne Regional Court, the unseizability of the claim is also not lost by the fact that by transferring the immediate assistance to the debtor's account in question, there is only a claim for payment against the credit institution. This would be highly inequitable and contrary to the intention of the legislator. In the cases not covered by § Section 850k (4) ZPO cases covered, this was in the present case via the application of § 765a ZPO to reach.