Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 9:15:05 GMT
Banking entities file lawsuits for non-compliance with the obligation to pay the monthly installments of loans linked to their business or professional activity, and even the guarantees granted by the Official Credit Institute (ICO). The condemnatory judicial resolutions are executed by the judicial bodies at the request of said entities, opening an embargo phase. Eduardo Abad, president of UPTA, "the precepts of the Civil Code are totally violated, which indicate that non-seizable assets are the amounts that a worker receives as compensation for the performance of his or her work in an amount that does not exceed the Minimum Interprofessional Wage (SMI), Currently €950.00 per month, for 14 payments. This same rule applies to the self-employed worker who, since he does not have a payroll.
Forced to demonstrate that his net income does not exceed that non-attachable minimum. It is not difficult to understand the difficulty that this process poses for a self-employed person by presenting invoices for income, expenses, receipts, etc. The judicial abandonment that we denounce from UPTA, arrives when the competent AOL Email List legal operator, the Lawyer of the Administration of Justice generally, gives the order to seize all the bank balances owned by the executed person, in this case the self-employed worker. The current electronic system of judicial seizures allows, through it, the automatic seizure of all the balances that exist at that time in all the banking entities attached to it. With this procedure, the bank does not differentiate the amounts that may not be seized because they do not exceed the legal.
Minimum, and proceeds to retain all the balances existing at that time and deposit them in the court's current account to be delivered to the bank as debt payment. It also does not differentiate whether there is a single account holder or several, but instead seizes the entire existing balance. “The bank that receives the seizure order does not verify that the balance that exists in the accounts is an amount that is considered “savings,” and therefore seizureable, or is considered non-seizureable because it corresponds only to the income that the self-employed person receives from his job. Once the worker verifies that his balance has been withheld and deposited into the Court's account and that he no longer has it, he must appear in court and demonstrate that the seized balance was unseizable.
Forced to demonstrate that his net income does not exceed that non-attachable minimum. It is not difficult to understand the difficulty that this process poses for a self-employed person by presenting invoices for income, expenses, receipts, etc. The judicial abandonment that we denounce from UPTA, arrives when the competent AOL Email List legal operator, the Lawyer of the Administration of Justice generally, gives the order to seize all the bank balances owned by the executed person, in this case the self-employed worker. The current electronic system of judicial seizures allows, through it, the automatic seizure of all the balances that exist at that time in all the banking entities attached to it. With this procedure, the bank does not differentiate the amounts that may not be seized because they do not exceed the legal.
Minimum, and proceeds to retain all the balances existing at that time and deposit them in the court's current account to be delivered to the bank as debt payment. It also does not differentiate whether there is a single account holder or several, but instead seizes the entire existing balance. “The bank that receives the seizure order does not verify that the balance that exists in the accounts is an amount that is considered “savings,” and therefore seizureable, or is considered non-seizureable because it corresponds only to the income that the self-employed person receives from his job. Once the worker verifies that his balance has been withheld and deposited into the Court's account and that he no longer has it, he must appear in court and demonstrate that the seized balance was unseizable.