Conclusive evidential force of a bailiff's writ in third-party attachment
CAK attaches wages with an employer that denies receiving the writ
CAK holds a claim of €646.56 against a debtor and levies an attachment of wages in execution with her employer, the temporary employment agency IBC Europe B.V. IBC files no garnishee's declaration. CAK brings declaration proceedings under Section 477a(1) DCCP and claims the full attached amount from IBC — as though IBC were itself the debtor.
IBC contends that it never received the writ. It argues that the text on the digital copy is suspiciously pre-printed, that two of the director's initials are missing, and that it is improbable the document was handed to him in person — his office is far from the entrance. Moreover, as a temporary employment agency IBC routinely processes wage attachments and has no interest in ignoring one.
After the writ of summons is served, IBC immediately contacts CAK's authorised representative, stating that it is unaware of the attachment. The representative then does nothing to resolve the matter out of court and presses on with the proceedings.
Subdistrict court: the writ provides conclusive evidence, but the attachment is ineffective
The subdistrict court proceeds in two steps. First, the validity of the attachment. Under Section 157(1) DCCP, a bailiff's writ provides conclusive evidence of what the bailiff, acting within his authority, records concerning his own observations and actions. The statement that the copy was left with IBC's representative in person falls squarely within this. IBC bears the burden of rebuttal — and does not discharge it.
The pre-printed text on the digital copy stems from the digitisation of the bailiff's process: the bailiff leaves a paper copy with handwritten text with the garnishee, while completing and signing a digital copy on a tablet on the spot. At the hearing, the person concerned also acknowledged having accepted writs before. The absence of two initials is insufficient to rebut the conclusive evidential force.
Then the substance. At the hearing IBC does, after all, make a judicial declaration about the wage payments during the attachment period. The parties jointly establish that, after deduction of the protected-earnings threshold, nothing was owed to CAK. The attachment achieved nothing and CAK suffered no loss. The claims are dismissed.
The extrajudicial collection costs also fall away. CAK sent reminders to an email address that turned out not to belong to IBC and did not substantiate that it had sent at least one letter by post. The subdistrict court sets off the costs of the proceedings: although IBC had not filed a garnishee's declaration, it was not established that CAK had properly served notice on IBC, and CAK had made no attempt whatsoever, after IBC's notification, to resolve the matter out of court.
What does this mean for employers faced with a wage attachment?
Disputing a bailiff's writ is an uphill path. The conclusive evidential force of Section 157 DCCP sets the bar for rebuttal high — missing initials, improbability or digital formatting do not suffice. A garnishee that files no garnishee's declaration risks an order to pay another party's entire debt. A judicial declaration at the hearing offers a safety net, but that is a plan B, not a strategy.
The flip side is just as instructive: CAK won the evidential point but lost the case. Litigating a claim of €646.56 without verifying whether the attachment is effective, and without responding seriously when the opposing party comes forward, ultimately produces only costs. Read more about enforcement disputes on the page on commercial litigation and the analysis of the limits on enforcement of penalty clauses.
Frequently asked questions
What are declaration proceedings in a third-party attachment?
Where a third party subject to an attachment makes no declaration about what it owes the debtor, the attaching creditor may, under Section 477a(1) DCCP, summon the garnishee. The sanction is far-reaching: an order to pay the full attached amount, as though the third party were itself the debtor.
Can a garnishee challenge the validity of a writ?
In theory, yes, but the threshold is high. A bailiff's writ provides conclusive evidence under Section 157(1) DCCP. Evidence to the contrary is admissible, but the garnishee must disprove the bailiff's statement — not merely cast doubt on it. In practice this rarely succeeds where the bailiff states that the document was handed over in person.
What is the protected-earnings threshold in a wage attachment?
The protected-earnings threshold is the portion of income that cannot be attached — a statutory minimum enabling the debtor to meet their living costs. If income, after deduction of fixed expenses, remains below that threshold, the employer need pay nothing over and the attachment is in effect ineffective, as was the case here.
District Court of Amsterdam 13 January 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:1055.
District Court of Amsterdam 13 January 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:1055.
Cited case law
District Courts: ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:1055
See also
- Conclusive evidential force: what does a deed prove? The same provision, subsection 2: what a deed proves, and whom it binds.
- Third-party attachment without an employment contract: when must the debtor's own company pay?
- Attachment and enforcement
- Evidential attachment does not limit the right of access: Supreme Court clarifies Section 843a DCCP
- Enforcement auction of a home blocked
- Trustee in bankruptcy rebuffed: acquisition of customer base insufficiently substantiated
- Insolvency & Enforcement — more on this practice area