Coincidence of wage enforcement - administrative and bailiff seizure


When hiring employees, the employer should take into account the possibility of receiving enforcement seizure from various bodies performing the seizure of receivables from remuneration for work. In a situation where we are dealing with a single seizure, the course of the proceedings has been known for years and reviewed in jurisprudence. The problem, on the other hand, arises when there is an overlapping of administrative and bailiff enforcement.

Coincidence of the enforcement of remuneration for work as of September 8, 2016.

In the previous legal status, in the situation of the confluence of administrative enforcement (tax office or ZUS) and bailiff enforcement from remuneration for work, the employer should provide information to both (or more) authorities regarding the occurrence of the enforcement proceedings in relation to the given remuneration resulting from the employment relationship.

The Supreme Court in the resolution of February 24, 2010, with reference number III CZP 133/09 defined the position in which, in the event of a confluence of administrative and judicial enforcement for the same thing or property right, the court decides on the decision as to the competent enforcement authority authorized to continue joint enforcement cases for the given thing or property right.

In such a situation, the employer made deductions from the remuneration for work, but had to keep them in the so-called a special deposit until the court receives a decision on the appointment of an enforcement authority with the priority of payment for employment.

Changes regarding the coincidence of enforcement from remuneration for work

Starting from September 8, 2016, in accordance with the amended art. 8821 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the event of administrative and judicial enforcement at the same time, when the remuneration is not sufficient to cover all the enforced receivables, the employer makes payments to the court or administrative enforcement authority that first performed the attachment.

This means that, for example, if the employer has received a bailiff seizure (judicial enforcement authority) and from the tax office or ZUS (administrative enforcement authorities), then in a situation where the amount resulting from the seizure is higher than the amount of remuneration subject to seizure (it is an amount higher than the minimum wage determined annually, in accordance with Article 2 (5) of the Act of 10 October 2002 on the minimum remuneration for work, as amended), the employer makes deductions and pays the payment to the enforcement authority that first received the employer.

Start a free 30-day trial period with no strings attached!

Impossible to identify the enforcement authority with the priority of attachment

Another issue is the impossibility of determining which enforcement authority has priority in carrying out the attachment from remuneration for work. Pursuant to Art. 8821 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if it is not possible to determine which enforcement authority made the first attachment from remuneration, the employer should make a deduction to the authority that performed the attachment against the higher amount due.

In addition, the employer is obliged to immediately notify the competent enforcement authorities of the convergence of the enforcement, indicating the date of delivery of the notices about the seizures made by these authorities and the amount of the receivables for which the seizure was made.

For example, if the employer receives seizure from ZUS due to e.g. overdue contributions for business activity conducted in the past, and a few days later a bailiff seizure for the unpaid penalty for the lack of a ticket while traveling by public transport, then he will first make deductions to ZUS because he was he was the first enforcement authority from which he received an occupation from remuneration for work.

Another situation may be the receipt of salary classes from the bailiff and from the tax office on the same day.

In such a situation, the employer makes a deduction to the enforcement body, the value of which will be higher due to the received attachment. The employer must also remember to immediately notify both enforcement bodies of a given coincidence of activities as regards a given remuneration for work.

EU Member State Uniform Enforcement Order

Pursuant to Art. 7731 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the event of a confluence of administrative enforcement carried out on the basis of a uniform enforcement title of a European Union Member State or a foreign enforcement title specified in the Act of 11 October 2013 on mutual assistance in the recovery of taxes, customs duties and other monetary receivables and court enforcement to the same thing or property right - enforcement to this thing or property right is always carried out jointly only by the administrative enforcement authority.