Corona special payment to teachers: Non-seizable hardship allowance according to a recent judgment of the Hanover Regional Court
The financial compensation during the Corona pandemic has gained central importance in many areas of the public sector, especially for teachers. Recently, the focus was on the question of whether the so-called Corona special payments are subject to creditor access or should be classified as non-seizable. A judgment by the Hanover Regional Court (LG Hannover, 11 T 2/22, published on 16.08.2022) has examined the legal classification of these payments in greater detail and provided clarifications relevant to practice.
Legal basis for the seizable nature of earnings
Garnishment protection according to § 850a ZPO
German civil procedure law protects certain portions of income from creditor access. In particular, Section 850a of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) defines earnings considered non-seizable. This includes, for example, hardship allowances which serve to compensate for particular burdens during work. The crucial legal assessment is whether the Corona special payment can be subsumed under the categories listed there.
Relevance for teachers
Employees in schools who faced considerable additional challenges during the pandemic are especially affected by this legal question. The special payment was granted as compensation for extra efforts, such as for hygiene measures, digital teaching, and increased health risks.
Legal assessment and argumentation of the Hanover Regional Court
Classification as a hardship allowance
In its decision, the Hanover Regional Court clarified that the special payment granted to teachers within the framework of the Corona pandemic typologically constitutes a hardship allowance within the meaning of § 850a No. 3 ZPO. The decisive factor is that this benefit was not granted as a flat-rate supplement to remuneration, but explicitly as compensation for deteriorated working conditions.
In the specific case, the applicant had objected to the garnishment of his special payment. The court followed the argument that the Corona bonus constitutes a separately identified payment that specifically addresses pandemic-related additional burdens and risks—not merely a general pay increase. Thus, the increased protection of non-seizability applies.
Distinction from other special payments
The court also emphasized the special purpose of the Corona allowance. Unlike Christmas or vacation bonuses, which are usually paid in a flat rate to all employees, the special payment reflects the individual burden in an extraordinary situation. This targeted purpose justifies classifying it not as regular income, but as compensation for an exceptional hardship.
Practical implications for practice
Significance for ongoing and future garnishment proceedings
The judgment sets a precedent for how special payments granted during extraordinary crisis periods to public sector employees should be handled going forward. The protection against garnishment under § 850a ZPO is strengthened by this decision and rendered applicable to comparable cases in other authorities or business sectors.
It remains possible that divergent structures of special payments—such as changes in the designated purpose by the employer—could lead to a different legal assessment. In the context of ongoing or future enforcement actions, it is therefore advisable to closely examine the legal basis, purpose of payment, and amount stated.
Impact on enforcement in the public sector
For employees in the public sector, the judgment improves legal certainty that pandemic-related hardship allowances are not subject to garnishment. Creditors and enforcement authorities, according to the court, must assess the purpose of such payments on a case-by-case basis to prevent unlawful garnishments.
Reference to the overall societal situation
The decision of the Hanover Regional Court reflects an appreciation of the atypical additional burdens in the public sector under pandemic conditions. It affirms that the legislature and the courts continue to develop specific protection mechanisms in favor of affected employees during crisis situations.
Note on open legal questions and current developments
It should be noted that the legal situation continues to evolve, and comparable cases may be assessed differently by the courts. Judicial review of divergent circumstances has not yet been completed; moreover, there is always the possibility of differing approaches by other courts of instance. It is therefore advisable to assess each individual case based on the latest developments in garnishment law and administrative instructions.
For companies, employees, as well as creditors, the classification and treatment of pandemic-related special payments in enforcement law can have significant practical effects. For legal inquiries regarding garnishment protection, enforcement, or remuneration issues, the lawyers at MTR Legal provide precise professional assistance.
