Background
The debtor sought to overturn an August 2, 2022 garnishment order issued by the Cologne Local Court. After the Cologne Regional Court addressed the matter on August 14, 2025, the debtor pursued a further appeal on a point of law before the Federal Court of Justice but later withdrew it.
Following the withdrawal, the debtor’s counsel applied under § 33(1) of the German Lawyers’ Remuneration Act (RVG) to have the value of counsel’s activity fixed for calculating attorney fees. The relevant value depended on the debtor’s interest in obtaining cancellation of the garnishment and, under the valuation reflected in § 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), generally corresponded to the secured claim unless the attached asset was worth less.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court of Justice fixed the value of counsel’s activity in the appeal proceedings at up to €260,000. It explained that a single judge of the Federal Court of Justice may decide an application of this kind.
At the time the fees arose, the secured principal claim had been reduced to €243,567.36 after a deposited sum of €1,070,344.80 was paid to the creditor and applied first to costs and interest under § 367(1) of the Civil Code (BGB). That placed the matter within the fee bracket above €230,000 and up to €260,000. Later payments did not reduce the value because they occurred only after both parties’ procedural fees had already arisen. Nor did the value of the attached claim justify a lower figure: the deposited amount initially exceeded the secured claim and was not released until after the relevant fees had arisen.
Key Takeaways
- When a party seeks cancellation of a garnishment, the value used to calculate attorney fees generally follows the amount of the secured claim, subject to the attached asset’s value.
- The relevant valuation is determined when the procedural fees arise; later reductions of the secured claim do not retroactively lower that value.
- The order addressed only the value of counsel’s activity after withdrawal of the appeal, not the merits of the underlying garnishment dispute.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the timing and valuation rules governing attorney fees in German enforcement appeals. Payments made before fees arise can affect the applicable fee bracket, while later payments generally cannot.
It also underscores that seeking to dissolve an attachment is treated as a dispute concerning the relevant security interest for valuation purposes, and that the attached asset’s value produces a reduction only when it is lower than the secured claim at the legally relevant time.