The Audiencia de Barcelona has ordered the Agència Tributària de Catalunya, the Catalan Tax Agency, to reimburse a man after it seized funds from his bank account despite his income falling below the legal minimum-wage threshold. The case concerned protection for pension income under Article 607 of Spain’s Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Civil Procedure Act), which exempts salaries, wages, pensions and equivalent income up to the salario mínimo interprofesional (SMI). The benchmark cited in the case was €1,166.67 per month.
The dispute followed two account embargoes in 2022. The agency seized €579.70 and €860.70 to enforce administrative penalties, for a combined principal of €1,440.40 before interest. The man received a permanent-disability pension of €975.61 per month, €191.06, or about 16.4%, below the cited SMI. He argued that the withdrawals left him unable to cover basic costs, including food and impressive bills.
Article 607 protects income up to the SMI; income above that threshold is subject to a graduated seizure scale. The statutory rates are 30% on the portion between one and two times the SMI, 50% between two and three times, 60% between three and four times, 75% between four and five times, and 90% on the portion exceeding five times the SMI. The protection covers pensions as well as employment earnings. The Ley General Tributaria also governs the administrative collection of public-law debts, including the enforcement process in this case.
The court rejected the agency’s argument that the legal challenge was premature. It also found that the man had not been properly informed of the deadline to contest the administrative action. A failure to notify him, the court found, should not prevent him from seeking judicial review. The ruling so addressed both the protection of income below the SMI and whether the claim could be heard.
The court ordered the return of the full €1,440.40, plus late-payment interest, but declined to award additional damages for the hardship caused by the seizures. The Agència Tributària de Catalunya retains the right to appeal. When pension payments reach a bank account, their origin and timing can matter: current protected income may need to be distinguished from older balances or other deposits when an embargo is applied.
The case shows how the SMI sets a subsistence floor in debt enforcement, particularly for people relying on disability pensions and other benefits. It also points to the importance of clear notice of administrative deadlines and careful treatment of protected income. Similar questions about public authorities’ procedures and legal oversight have arisen elsewhere, including when Almería prosecutors investigated councilors for procedural delays in a high-profile case.
