30.11.2018
In 2009, the possibility of inspecting the enforcement register (Section 73a EO in the version in force at the time) was abolished for data protection reasons. While it was previously possible to assess whether or not "preliminary enforcements" had been carried out (and whether or not a title was therefore collectible), this was no longer possible since the abolition of Section 73a EO.
Soon, however - the provisions will come into force on January 1, 2019 - Sections 427 ff of the EO will again allow such inspection, and lawyers and notaries (and also local authorities and social insurance companies) will be entitled to inspect and query documents. In any case, the prerequisite is a "creditor status" - mere curiosity is not enough.
The prerequisite for such an electronic query is the certification of a claim and "justified doubts about the debtor's creditworthiness". In this case, the enforcement court, the file number and the amount of the (already enforced) claims can of course be queried, and it can also be found out whether there have already been any seizures or unsuccessful "enforcement attempts".
To prevent abuse, Section 429 EO stipulates that processing beyond the scope of the respective execution is not permitted and that the query results and additional information must be destroyed at least one year after the query. Furthermore, the logs of the queries must be kept for 10 years and a lawyer or notary may not make more than 25 queries per calendar day. According to Section 430 EO, the professional associations (bar association and notary association) must ensure through random checks that queries are only carried out under the legally specified conditions. Finally, according to Section 431 EO, abuse also constitutes an administrative offence, which would be punishable by a fine of up to € 50,000.00 in the event of a repeat offense.
In summary, the reintroduced option of assessing a debtor's creditworthiness in advance should be used as far as possible to determine whether enforcement attempts seem sensible. This is probably the main reason for the reintroduction of the previous regulation: to avoid enforcement proceedings (which, if fully informed, are already deemed unsuccessful from the outset).