Page - 186 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 2/2021

ALJ 2021 Nunner-Krautgasser/Weidinger 186 offered within a period of 2 years (§ 141 [1] IO); for consumers, the fulfilment period may amount to up to five years (§ 141 [1] IO).29 In addition to that, the reorganisation plan has to be reasonable, which means that the debtor's offer must be in due proportion to the actual economic circumstances (cf. § 154 IO). In practice, however, the reorganisation plan plays only a minor role in consumer insolvencies because only very few debtors can realistically offer the – comparatively high – minimum quota.30 In 2020, a reorganisation plan was only accepted in about 0.4% of all consumer insolvencies.31 If no reorganisation plan is adopted, the debtor's assets must generally be liquidated before another way for debt discharge can be taken (§ 193 [2] IO)32 Therefore, only after the liquidation of the assets a settlement plan can be concluded or (subsidiarily) proceedings for income levy can be initiated.33 2. Settlement plan The settlement plan is a modified form of the reorganisation plan provided for in bankruptcy proceedings for natural persons (cf. § 193 [1] IO).34 This debt discharge method is very well accepted in practice: In 2020, a settlement plan was concluded in about 70% of all debt settlement proceedings.35 Satisfaction under the settlement plan may extend over a maximum period of seven years (§ 194 [1] IO).36 In contrast to the reorganisation plan, the settlement plan does not provide for a statutory minimum quota; instead, the debtor has to offer a so-called "relative minimum quota" ("relative Mindestquote"), which has to be adequate to the debtor’s income situation.37 As a basis for the assessment of adequacy, a forecast period of three years (previously five years38) regarding the debtor’s income is used 29 Kodek, Insolvenzrecht2 Rz 558; Mohr, Privatinsolvenz3 Rz 5; Nunner-Krautgasser, ZinsO 2017, 2525 (2526); Rechberger/Seeber/Thurner, Insolvenzrecht3 Rz 461; Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 484; Feuchtinger/Lesigang, Insolvenzrecht4 130. 30 Kodek, Insolvenzrecht2 Rz 551; Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 484; Nunner-Krautgasser, ZinsO 2017, 2525 (2526). 31 ASB Schuldenberatungen, Schuldenreport 2021 (2021) 7. 32 Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 485; cf. Kodek, Insolvenzrecht2 Rz 462. 33 Fadinger, Die neue Privatinsolvenz, JAP 2017/2018, 168 (169); Feuchtinger/Lesigang, Insolvenzrecht4 130 et seq; Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 486; Mohr, Privatinsolvenz3 Rz 4; Nunner-Krautgasser, ZinsO 2017, 2525 (2526). 34 Reckenzaun, Sonderprobleme des Schuldners als Einzelunternehmer und Zahlungsplan, in Poltsch/Bertl/Fraberger/Reckenzaun/Isola/Petsch (Eds), Praxishandbuch Insolvenzabwicklung (2016) 553 (563); Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 486; Kodek, Insolvenzrecht2 Rz 551; Nunner-Krautgasser, ZinsO 2017, 2525 (2526). 35 ASB Schuldenberatungen, Schuldenreport 7. 36 Mohr, Neuerungen im Privatinsolvenzverfahren – IRÄG 2017, ZIK 2017, 97 (98); Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 486; Fadinger, JAP 2017/2018, 168 (169); Schneider, Das neue Privatinsolvenzrecht, VbR 2017, 188 (188); Konecny, IRÄG 2017 und Neues im Insolvenzrecht für natürliche Personen, ecolex 2017, 1160 (1161); Kodek, Reform des Privatkonkurses – Das Insolvenzrechtsänderungsgesetz 2017, Zak 2017, 147 (148). 37 Nunner-Krautgasser, ZinsO 2017, 2525 (2526); Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 486; Riel, Insolvenzrechtsänderungsgesetz 2017, AnwBl 2017, 275 (276). 38 Mohr, ZIK 2017, 97 (98); Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 486; Nunner-Krautgasser, ZinsO 2017, 2525 (2526); Fadinger, JAP 2017/2018, 168 (169); Schneider, VbR 2017, 188 (188); Konecny, ecolex 2017, 1160 (1161); Kodek, Zak 2017, 147 (148).