I was seized by the fifth of the salary at the source for an ordinary debt: a few days ago I received another deed of attachment, again with the employer, for tax debts, of 1/10, which was rejected by the company insofar as it claims that the loanor should queue; but in reality, since they are debts of a different nature should they contribute up to a maximum of half of the salary?
Another question: if the agency collects or another bank tried to seize the current account instead, should ex lege, do it for 1/5 total, taking into account the attachment already in progress (residual capacity) deducting it from the net salary, in ‘ amount paid in the bank? I know that the legislation leaves room for extensive interpretations about the fifth to be attached to the employer and the bank, coming in fact to seize, depending on the orientation followed, the two fifths total.
Last question: the account on which the salary or pension flows together must not be used to pay for various users or to make transfers of another nature since the opening or the month in which the loanor decides to attack him? I have an account for ten years with a bank, which I use to pay utilities and pay the installments of a loan contracted with it for three years; my doubt is if I have to show the account, from the moment of its stipulation, for the loan of the salary, or vice versa I could protect myself by simply eliminating, from now, all the above mentioned items, including the loan installment contract with my bank ?
loanors may attach to the defaulting debtor and employee 20% of the maximum salary (considered net of tax and social security contributions, as well as gross of any sales of the fifth in progress) for ordinary debts (loans not repaid, bank loans) not covered, uncovered checks, unsecured bills, compensation for damages to natural persons).
Loanors may attach to the default debtor and employee 20% of the maximum salary (considered net of tax and social security contributions, as well as gross of any assignments of the fifth in progress) for tax debts (in practice all payables to the Public Administration for which Revenue Agency – Collection and / or local collection agents act).
In total, for ordinary and tax payables, the maximum payable is 40% of the monthly remuneration net of tax and social security contributions (and gross of the reimbursement installment of a fifth transfer – but in this case further limitations come into play).
In fact, for foreclosions attributable to receivables of a food nature (maintenance grants to the separated spouse, divorce allowance to the former spouse, child support allowance and contribution, obligation to provide food to the needy family members pursuant to Article 433 of the Civil Code), in competition with foreclosures attributable to ordinary and tax collection loans and to sales of the fifth can not exceed 50% of the salary net of tax and social security contributions.
Article 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the salary loaned to a bank or post office account payable to the debtor can be deducted only for the amount exceeding three times the social allowance (in practice, at the time of writing, for the amount exceeding 1360 euros). The triple social allowance is considered as impenetrable for the salary that flows into the debtor’s current account.
Until the law decree 83/2015 came into force, in Article 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure there was no provision that currently provides for the impinquorability of an amount equal to three times the social allowance for the salary loaned to the current account.
For this reason, the debtor was advised to use the current account indicated to the employer for the loaning of salary exclusively for this purpose: it was the only way to appeal to the judge of executions to prove the double foreclosure made by the loanor on the salary (direct to the employer and indirect after the loaning of the residual on the occasion of the seizure of the current account). In this way, no one could contest that what was available in the current account could not be traced back to the salary already attached to the source. Today this device, as previously explained, is no longer necessary.