Page - 187 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 2/2021

ALJ 2021 From debt to discharge 187 (§ 194 [1] IO). Here, not only the income actually achieved is to be taken into account, but also income that can be achieved under strain ("Anspannung") of the debtor.39 The settlement plan may be adjusted due to subsequent changes in the debtor's income and financial circumstances: Pursuant to § 198 IO, if the debtor's income or asset situation changes through no fault of his own so that he is no longer able to comply with the settlement plan, he may request a vote on a new settlement plan and the initiation of proceedings for income levy.40 This must be done within a period of 14 days after a reminder by a creditor. In contrast, an unexpected improvement in the debtor's income and asset situation does not entitle creditors to request a change in the settlement plan.41 The offer of a "zero quota" ("Nullquote") in the settlement plan is possible if the debtor is not expected to earn any seizable income within three years or if the income will only be slightly over the subsistence minimum (cf. § 194 [1] IO);42 the latter is to be assessed according to the circumstances of the individual case (but can generally be assumed with regard to an amount of € 10).43 There was a discussion about whether low-income debtors had to offer a settlement plan with a "zero quota" at all or whether he could apply directly for the proceedings for income levy.44 However, with the current amendment to the provisions regarding debt settlement proceedings, the Austrian legislator has clarified that the proceedings for income levy are still subsidiary to the settlement plan in any case.45 3. Proceedings for income levy Proceedings for income levy are to take place only if an (admissible) settlement plan was rejected by the creditors or denied confirmation by the court.46 In 2020, proceedings for income levy were initiated in about 29% of consumer bankruptcies.47 The application to initiate the proceedings for income levy must be submitted to the court with the settlement 39 Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 504; Kodek, Privatkonkurs2 Rz 361; dissenting opinion Schneider, Privatinsolvenz3 129 et seq; Schneider, VbR 2017, 188 (189); Pfandl/Schmid, Insolvenzrecht 231. 40 Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 516; Mohr, Privatinsolvenz und RIRUG: Entschuldung nach drei Jahren, VbR 2021, 120 (122); Kodek, Insolvenzrecht2 Rz 620. 41 Kodek, Insolvenzrecht2 Rz 620. 42 Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 486; Schneider, VbR 2017, 188 (188); Fadinger, JAP 2017/2018, 168 (169); Nunner-Krautgasser, ZinsO 2017, 2525 (2526); Konecny, ecolex 2017, 1161; Mohr, Privatinsolvenz3 Rz 539; Riel, AnwBl 2017, 275 (276); Konecny, ecolex 2017, 1160 (1161); Mohr, ZIK 2017, 97 (98). 43 Cf. Schneider, VbR 2017, 188 (188); Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 504; Konecny, ecolex 2017, 1160 (1161); Kodek, Insolvenzrecht2 Rz 612; ErläutRV 1588 BlgNR 25. GP 11; Mohr, Privatinsolvenz3 Rz 540; Kodek, Zak 2017, 147 (148); Mohr, ZIK 2017, 97 (99). 44 Cf. Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 486; affirming Konecny, ecolex 2017, 1160 (1162); Nunner-Krautgasser, ZinsO 2017, 2525 (2527 et seq); Kodek, Insolvenzrecht2 Rz 612; Riel, AnwBl 2017, 275 (276); Schneider, VbR 2017, 188 (188); negating ErläutRV 1588 BlgNR 25. GP 11; Mohr, Privatinsolvenz3 Rz 539; Kodek, Zak 2017, 147 (148); Mohr, ZIK 2017, 97 (98); Mitterlehner/Moser in Reiffenstein/Blaschek 17 (20). 45 ErläutRV 950 BlgNR 27. GP 28. 46 Schneider, VbR 2017, 188 (189); Dellinger/Oberhammer/Koller, Insolvenzrecht4 Rz 487; Fadinger, JAP 2017/2018, 168 (168); Kodek, Insolvenzrecht2 Rz 632. 47 ASB Schuldenberatungen, Schuldenreport 7.