How to Garnish a Bank Account in Germany: Step-by-step Guide for Creditors (pfändung & EAPO, Incl. 2026 Updates)

Last reviewed: 26 July 2026, updated for the 1 July 2026 Pfändungsfreibetrag increase and current EAPO practice.

Understanding how to garnish a bank account in Germany is essential for any creditor holding an unpaid judgment or enforceable title against a German debtor. The enforcement procedure, known as Kontopfändung, allows creditors to freeze and ultimately seize funds held in a debtor’s bank account through a court-issued garnishment order served on the bank. For cross-border claims within the EU, creditors may alternatively apply for a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014, which provides a fast-track mechanism to freeze accounts across Member States without prior recognition proceedings.

This guide sets out both domestic and cross-border routes in a single procedural checklist, incorporating the new P-Konto protection thresholds effective 1 July 2026 and their practical impact on seizable balances.

Overview of Account Garnishment in Germany and Who It Applies To

Creditors enforcing monetary claims against debtors in Germany have two principal routes to seize bank-held funds:

Route A, Domestic Pfändung (Kontopfändung). Governed by the Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), specifically §§ 829 and 835 ZPO, this is the standard enforcement procedure. The creditor applies to the Vollstreckungsgericht (enforcement court) for a Pfändungs- und Überweisungsbeschluss, a combined attachment and transfer order. Once the court issues the order and the bailiff (Gerichtsvollzieher) serves it on the bank (the Drittschuldner, or third-party debtor), the bank must immediately freeze funds up to the claim amount.

Route B, European Account Preservation Order (EAPO). Created by Regulation (EU) No 655/2014, the EAPO enables creditors to freeze bank accounts held in another EU Member State without needing to have the judgment separately recognised there. It is designed as an accelerated, ex parte procedure available before or after a judgment has been obtained.

Both routes apply equally to claims against natural persons and legal entities. However, when the debtor is a natural person, special protections apply through the Pfändungsschutzkonto (P-Konto) regime under § 850k ZPO, which shields a statutory minimum monthly amount from garnishment. As of 1 July 2026, the protected base amount on a P-Konto has increased, a change that directly affects how much a creditor can collect from any single garnishment action.

Eligibility and Prerequisites for Account Garnishment in Germany

Enforceable Title Required

Before initiating a Pfändung, the creditor must hold a valid enforceable title (Vollstreckungstitel). Under the ZPO enforcement framework, qualifying titles include:

• Final court judgments marked enforceable (vollstreckbare Ausfertigung).
• Default judgments (Versäumnisurteil).
• Enforcement orders (Vollstreckungsbescheid) obtained through the Mahnverfahren (dunning procedure).
• Notarised deeds with a submission-to-enforcement clause (vollstreckbare Urkunde).
• European Enforcement Orders and titles certified under EU instruments for cross-border enforcement.

For the EAPO route, a creditor may apply even before obtaining a judgment, provided they can demonstrate an urgent need and a good arguable case under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014. If the creditor already holds an enforceable judgment, the EAPO application is simplified.

Does the Debtor Have a Pfändungsschutzkonto (P-Konto)?

A P-Konto is a regular current account converted to garnishment-protection status under § 850k ZPO. Only natural persons may hold one, and each person may hold only one P-Konto. If the debtor’s account is a P-Konto, the bank will automatically protect the statutory exempt amount (Pfändungsfreibetrag) each month. Creditors typically learn of P-Konto status from the bank’s response after the garnishment order is served. Anticipating this protection is critical when calculating expected recoveries.

When to Prefer the EAPO (Cross-Border Enforcement)

The EAPO is the preferred route when the debtor holds accounts in another EU Member State (Denmark excluded), or when the creditor holds a judgment from a different Member State and wants to freeze German-held accounts without separate recognition. It is also available as a pre-judgment interim measure. Purely domestic cases, where both parties are in Germany and accounts are held at German banks, should proceed through domestic Pfändung, which is generally faster and less costly.

Step-by-Step Procedure: How to Garnish a Bank Account in Germany

The following table maps out the combined domestic and cross-border enforcement workflow. Each step indicates the responsible party and typical duration.

Step 1: Verify Your Enforceable Title

Obtain a certified enforceable copy (vollstreckbare Ausfertigung) of your judgment, enforcement order, or notarised deed from the issuing court or notary. For cross-border EAPO applications, you will also need the judgment or authentic instrument together with any required translations. If relying on a European Enforcement Order, ensure the certificate is properly issued under the applicable EU regulation.

Step 2: Locate the Debtor’s Bank Account

Effective enforcement requires knowing where the debtor banks. Practical methods include reviewing payment records and invoices for IBAN details, examining commercial register entries (Handelsregister) for corporate debtors, requesting an asset disclosure (Vermögensauskunft) through a bailiff, and analysing transactional evidence from prior dealings. All evidence-gathering must comply with GDPR requirements and German data protection law.

Step 3A: File a Domestic Pfändung Application at the Vollstreckungsgericht

Under § 829 ZPO, the creditor files a written application for a Pfändungs- und Überweisungsbeschluss at the enforcement court responsible for the debtor’s domicile. The application must contain: the creditor’s and debtor’s full details, the enforceable title reference and certified copy, the bank’s identity (name, BIC, branch), the debtor’s IBAN, the precise claim amount including interest and costs, and a request for both attachment (Pfändung) and transfer (Überweisung) of the seized funds to the creditor under § 835 ZPO. Courts typically issue the order within 2–7 business days without a hearing.

Step 3B: File an EAPO Application (Cross-Border Cases)

For cross-border enforcement, the creditor files an EAPO application using the standard forms prescribed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1823. The application is filed with the court that has jurisdiction in the Member State where the judgment was obtained (or, for pre-judgment applications, the court with jurisdiction over the substance of the claim). Supporting documents include the enforceable title or evidence of a good arguable case, evidence of urgency and risk of dissipation, and any available bank account information. The court must decide on the application promptly, typically within days under the fast-track procedure established by Regulation (EU) No 655/2014.

Step 4: Service on the Bank and Freeze of Funds

In domestic proceedings, the Gerichtsvollzieher (bailiff) serves the Pfändungs- und Überweisungsbeschluss on the debtor’s bank. The bank is legally obliged to freeze funds up to the garnished amount immediately upon valid service. The bank then checks whether the account has P-Konto status. If it does, the bank must automatically protect the statutory exempt amount under § 850k ZPO and freeze only the excess. For EAPO orders, the order is transmitted through central authorities to the bank in the relevant Member State, which then implements the freeze according to national procedures.

Step 5: Managing Debtor Objections and P-Konto Claims

Once served with notice of the garnishment, the debtor may take several defensive steps. They may apply to convert their account to a P-Konto (if not already converted), in which case the bank must implement the conversion within a few business days and protect the statutory exempt amount going forward. The debtor may also file an objection with the enforcement court contesting the garnishment on procedural or substantive grounds, or apply for increased protection if they have maintenance obligations for dependants. Creditors should monitor these deadlines closely and be prepared to respond to any court applications promptly.

Step 6: Final Transfer of Funds to the Creditor

Under § 835 ZPO, once the garnishment order includes a transfer component (Überweisungsbeschluss), the bank must transfer the frozen (non-protected) funds to the creditor. In practice, statutory waiting periods may delay the actual transfer, particularly where the debtor has raised objections or where the court has imposed a protective period. In straightforward cases, the bank will transfer funds once any mandatory objection windows have passed.

Step 7: Multiple Accounts and Multiple Jurisdictions

Where the debtor holds accounts at several banks or in multiple EU jurisdictions, creditors should pursue domestic Pfändung for German-held accounts and file parallel EAPO applications for accounts in other Member States. Coordinating these parallel proceedings requires careful timing and, in most cases, local enforcement counsel in each relevant jurisdiction. Prioritising accounts with the highest suspected balances maximises recovery efficiency.

Required Documents for Account Garnishment in Germany

The following checklist covers the documents needed for both domestic Pfändung and EAPO applications. Assembling these documents before filing minimises delays.

Timeline and Key Deadlines for Bank Account Garnishment

Timing varies depending on the route chosen, the court’s workload, and whether the debtor’s account carries P-Konto protection. The table below provides practical benchmarks for each key stage of the enforcement procedure.

Two practical points merit emphasis. First, always timestamp your court filings and service documents, banks rely on exact service paperwork to determine the freeze date. Second, EAPO proceedings may involve additional time for central authority transmission and certified translations, so creditors should engage local counsel in the host Member State early in the process.

Costs, Fees, and Tax Considerations for Account Garnishment

The following table outlines the principal cost items creditors should budget for when pursuing account garnishment in Germany through either the domestic or EAPO route.

Worked Example: P-Konto Impact on Collectible Amount

The following example illustrates how the Pfändungsschutzkonto reduces the immediately recoverable sum following a garnishment order:

In this scenario, the debtor’s P-Konto protection limits the creditor’s immediate recovery to €210. The outstanding balance of €4,790 remains enforceable through subsequent monthly garnishments (each limited by the same monthly protection) or through other enforcement measures. Creditors should factor these limitations into their recovery strategy and cost-benefit analysis before initiating proceedings.

Regarding tax treatment, enforcement recoveries generally represent repayment of a debt rather than taxable income for the creditor. However, recovered interest and certain insolvency-related distributions may carry tax implications, creditors should consult their local tax advisers on a case-by-case basis.

What Changes in 2026: Updated Pfändungsfreibetrag and P-Konto Thresholds

Effective 1 July 2026, the statutory Pfändungsfreibetrag, the base monthly amount protected from garnishment on a P-Konto, has increased. According to the Bundesministerium der Justiz (BMJV) official guidance, the new base protection threshold rises to approximately €1,590 per month (up from €1,560 in the preceding period). The mechanism for these annual adjustments is set out in § 850c ZPO, which ties the Pfändungsfreigrenzen to changes in the tax-exempt minimum income.

Where the debtor has maintenance obligations for dependants, the protected amount increases further: by approximately €597.42 for the first dependant and additional amounts for subsequent dependants, as published by the BMJV.

For creditors, the practical consequences are significant:

• Lower immediate recoveries. Higher protected amounts mean less money is available for immediate seizure from P-Konto holders.
• More P-Konto conversions. Industry observers expect more debtors to convert their accounts to P-Konto status in response to rising awareness of the protection available.
• Updated calculations required. Creditors and their counsel must use the current Pfändungstabelle when calculating seizable amounts, relying on outdated tables risks overestimating recovery.

Regarding EAPO practice, Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 itself has not been amended in 2026. However, the standard application forms under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1823 remain mandatory, and courts increasingly reject applications that do not use the correct forms or that contain incomplete translations.

Common Pitfalls When Garnishing a Bank Account in Germany

• Using outdated Pfändungsfreibetrag figures. The protected amounts change annually (each 1 July). Always check the current BMJV-published figures and the applicable Pfändungstabelle before filing.
• Failing to anticipate P-Konto protection. If the debtor already holds a P-Konto or converts after service, the bank will automatically shield the protected amount. Factor this into your recovery forecast before committing to enforcement costs.
• Incorrect or incomplete EAPO forms. Use the exact standard forms prescribed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1823. Missing fields, incorrect translations, or use of non-standard formats frequently lead to rejection or delay.
• Insufficient bank account evidence. Providing an incomplete IBAN, wrong BIC, or no transactional evidence slows enforcement and may result in service on the wrong branch or entity.
• Ignoring debtor objection windows. Debtors have statutory periods to file objections or claim increased protection. Plan transfer timelines to account for these windows, and monitor court dockets for any applications that could delay or reduce your recovery.
• No parallel strategy for multi-jurisdictional debtors. Where the debtor holds assets in multiple EU countries, pursue domestic Pfändung and EAPO filings in parallel. Engaging local enforcement counsel in each jurisdiction prevents procedural gaps.

Conclusion

Knowing how to garnish a bank account in Germany, whether through the domestic Pfändung route or the cross-border EAPO procedure, requires careful preparation, accurate documentation, and awareness of the debtor protections built into German enforcement law. The 2026 increases to the Pfändungsfreibetrag and P-Konto thresholds make it more important than ever for creditors to calculate expected recoveries accurately before committing to enforcement costs. Proper form completion (especially for EAPO applications), timely service, and proactive monitoring of debtor objection windows are the hallmarks of successful enforcement.

For creditors facing complex or cross-border enforcement scenarios, engaging experienced debt collection counsel with jurisdiction-specific expertise is strongly recommended. A directory of qualified lawyers in Germany is available to assist with case assessment and enforcement strategy.

Sources

1. Gesetze im Internet, ZPO, § 829 (Pfändung einer Geldforderung)
2. Gesetze im Internet, ZPO, § 835 (Überweisung einer Geldforderung)
3. Gesetze im Internet, ZPO, § 850c (Pfändungsfreigrenzen)
4. Gesetze im Internet, ZPO, § 850k (Pfändungsschutzkonto)
5. EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 (European Account Preservation Order)
6. European e-Justice Portal, EAPO Guidance
7. Bundesministerium der Justiz, Pfändungsschutzkonto (Official 2026 Guidance)
8. ServicePortal Berlin, Pfändungsschutzkonto (P-Konto) Setup