Attachability of savings deposits from non-attachable social security benefits

Facts

The complainant A. was subjected to garnishment by the debt enforcement office of Abtwil in two garnishment groups in autumn 2023. Affected was a balance on his bank account with Bank B. amounting to CHF 10,351.50. The garnishment notice was issued on 21 November 2023.

On 17 November 2023, A. filed a complaint with the presidency of the civil court of the district court of Muri and requested the refund of the garnished amount. The president of the district court dismissed the complaint with a decision dated 5 February 2024. Against this decision, A. filed an appeal with the High Court of the Canton of Aargau as the higher supervisory authority in enforcement law, which was also dismissed with a decision dated 8 April 2024.

A. then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court and requested the annulment of the High Court’s decision as well as the refund of the garnished amount. The Federal Supreme Court did not enter into the complaint and dismissed it.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the garnished bank balance from non-attachable social security benefits (AHV, IV pensions, supplementary benefits or family allowance fund benefits) is attachable. According to Art. 92 para. 1 no. 9a DEBA, these benefits themselves are non-attachable, but this does not apply to savings deposits formed from these benefits. The attachability of such savings is justified on the grounds that the list of non-attachable claims in Art. 92 DEBA is exhaustive and cannot be extended to monetary surrogates such as savings deposits. This view is supported by the prevailing doctrine and case law (see BGE 143 III 385 para. 4.2; BGE 135 III 20 para. 5).

The complainant argued that his account was funded exclusively by non-attachable social security benefits and that the balance was therefore non-attachable. The Federal Supreme Court rejected this argument. The decisive factor is that the account had a balance of between CHF 14,000 and CHF 18,000 over a longer period (about six months) and that the complainant did not need to resort to the garnished balance despite larger expenditures. The lower court’s findings of fact are binding on the Federal Supreme Court, provided they are not manifestly…