Multiple payment prohibitions against the same claim: priority by receipt
Several creditors attach the same claim: section 300 EO sets priority by receipt of the payment prohibition and regulates equal rank and shortfall.
22 September 2026, Mag. Bernhard Brandauer, Rechtsanwalt
When several creditors attach the same claim owed to the debtor, priority in ordinary claims enforcement is determined by when each payment prohibition reaches the third-party debtor. The provable receipt by the third-party debtor therefore matters more for the rank than the date of the enforcement application or the date of the court order alone.
Section 300(2) of the Austrian Enforcement Code, or EO, links the ranking of the security interests in the other cases covered by the provision to the time when the payment prohibition arrives at the third-party debtor. If several payment prohibitions arrive on the same day, the security interests rank equally. If the attached claim is insufficient, the enforceable claims including ancillary charges are satisfied in proportion to their total amounts.
The rank review concerns competition for the same attached claim. It does not replace the review of the enforcement title, the amount of each claim or the exact procedural position. Creditors should therefore collect service records, orders and the calculation of the claims as separate parts of the first review.
Which priority rule fits your claim attachment?
Answer three questions about receipt of the payment prohibitions and the available claim. The orientation is no substitute for reviewing the file.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
Do several creditors target the same claim against the same third-party debtor?
Section 300 EO concerns competition between attachments of the same claim.
Overview of all answers.
Define the attached claim first
For each creditor, match the enforcement title, attachment order, third-party debtor and identified claim. Only when the same claim is affected does the priority competition under section 300 EO arise.
Compare the receipt records
Compare service records and the documented receipt by the third-party debtor. For ordinary claim attachments, section 300(2) EO uses this point in time for the ranking of the security interests.
Review equal rank and shortfall
When several payment prohibitions arrive on the same day, the security interests rank equally. If the attached claim is insufficient, the enforceable claims including ancillary charges are taken into account in proportion to their total amounts.
Build the order by receipt
Create a chronological list of the provable receipts by the third-party debtor. When the days differ, section 300(2) EO generally assigns priority according to that order. The actual payment process must then be checked against the procedural position.
Secure receipt and service evidence
Do not record only the date of the court order. The relevant proof is when the payment prohibition reached the third-party debtor. Without that evidence, the priority order has no reliable chronological foundation.
When receipt of the payment prohibition determines priority
Section 300(2) EO uses the time when the payment prohibition reaches the third-party debtor to determine the ranking of the security interests in the cases covered by that rule. For a claim against a public-law legal entity, the relevant recipient is the office responsible for ordering the payment. This special situation must be kept separate from receipt by a private bank or private contractual debtor.
Several dates must therefore be separated: filing of the enforcement application, issue of the court order, service on the third-party debtor and any later payment or distribution. For an ordinary claim attachment, the statutory point of reference for priority is receipt of the payment prohibition by the third-party debtor.
The first creditor in that sequence obtains priority in the competition for the relevant claim. This says nothing by itself about the validity of the title, whether the claim is due or whether the attached claim exists in the asserted amount. Those remain separate questions.
What several payment prohibitions on the same day mean
If several payment prohibitions reach the third-party debtor on the same day, the security interests created by them rank equally. A difference of minutes within that day therefore does not create an additional priority under section 300(3) EO. It remains essential to prove that the common receipt day is correct.
Equal rank means that the claims share the same position in the competition. It does not mean that each creditor receives the same euro amount regardless of the size of the claim. If the attached claim is sufficient, the procedural position may allow satisfaction according to the relevant total amounts. If it is insufficient, the statutory proportion rule applies.
The equal-rank position should be stated clearly in correspondence. A general reference to several enforcement proceedings is not enough. The file should show that the same claim is affected and that the payment prohibitions reached the correct third-party debtor on the same day.
How proportional satisfaction works when the claim is insufficient
If the attached claim cannot cover all claims of the creditors with equal rank, section 300(3) EO provides that the enforceable claims including ancillary charges are satisfied in proportion to their total amounts. The first calculation should therefore identify the total amount of each claim and the amount actually available from the attached claim.
The proportion can be expressed as each total claim divided by the sum of the total claims sharing the rank. This is a calculation aid for distributing the available claim. It does not replace the review of whether ancillary amounts are enforceable, correctly calculated or covered by the particular attachment.
An example using hypothetical amounts can explain the calculation only. The proportion does not make a general statement about other types of enforcement or about protected minimum income. This article addresses priority competition under section 300 EO for the same attached claim.
Which records prove the priority order
For each payment prohibition, bring together the court order, service record and proof of receipt by the third-party debtor. For electronic service, transmission or receipt logs may matter. If the third-party debtor is a public-law legal entity, also identify which payment-ordering office recorded the receipt.
The records must be assigned to the correct claim. A third-party debtor may have several legal relationships with the debtor. The contract, invoices, due date, attachment scope and wording of the order should therefore be reviewed together. Earlier receipt concerning another claim does not create priority for the claim under review.
A chronological table is useful. It can list the creditor, file number, description of the claim, receipt date, total amount including ancillary charges and documented scope of the attachment. This makes it possible to see whether there is a genuine priority competition or whether the claims concern different rights.
What creditors and third-party debtors should check next
Creditors should not infer their priority solely from the date of the enforcement order. The decisive records concern receipt by the third-party debtor and the exact attached claim. If the receipt day is the same, prepare the calculation by total amounts and ancillary charges when the attached claim is likely to be insufficient.
Third-party debtors should file payment prohibitions with the receipt date, the claim concerned and the affected proceedings. When several prohibitions relate to the same claim, the priority information must remain traceable. An unclear file chronology cannot be replaced by an assumption about payment or distribution.
For a concrete review, keep the title, attachment orders, service and receipt records, the contract with the third-party debtor and an up-to-date statement of the claim. Only then can it be assessed whether section 300 EO actually covers the same claim and competing attachments.
Priority when several creditors attach the same claim
Is the date of the enforcement order decisive for priority?
For ordinary claim attachments covered by section 300(2) EO, the relevant point is when the payment prohibition reaches the third-party debtor. The order date and receipt date may differ and should be documented separately.
Who has priority when payment prohibitions arrive on different days?
Priority generally follows the sequence of receipts by the third-party debtor. The actual enforcement also depends on the scope of the attachment, the enforceable claim and the procedural position.
What happens when two payment prohibitions arrive on the same day?
Under section 300(3) EO, the security interests created by them rank equally. An earlier receipt within the same day does not create an additional priority under this rule.
How are equally ranked creditors satisfied?
If the attached claim is insufficient, the enforceable claims including ancillary charges are satisfied in proportion to their total amounts. The relevant amounts and the claim actually available must be traceable.
Does earlier receipt by another third-party debtor count?
The priority competition under review must concern the same attached right and the same relevant third-party debtor. Receipt concerning another claim cannot be transferred to this claim without further review.
Which records should a creditor secure first?
Secure the enforcement title, attachment order, service and receipt records, description of the attached claim and an up-to-date statement of principal and ancillary charges. This allows the priority question to be reviewed chronologically and by amount.
Further pages
Claim attachment, Payment prohibition, Priority, Equal rank, Section 300 EO, Third-party debtor, Austria