New enforcement rules and a statutory proportioning principle for spouses and cohabitants
What's at stake: The reserved amount determines how much of an indebted person's income may be taken in wage garnishment. If the partner's ability to contribute to shared household costs is counted, a larger share of the debtor's own income can be seized, which affects both the debtor and the person living with them — while at the same time more debts get paid faster.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether the so-called proportioning principle should be written into the Enforcement Code and apply to both spouses and cohabitants, so that the partner's financial ability to contribute to the household's shared costs is taken into account when the debtor's reserved amount is set, or whether cohabitants should be exempt from the rule.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee shares the government's assessment that the enforcement procedure needs to be made more efficient and modern, and notes that the proportioning principle is already applied by the Enforcement Authority in wage garnishment: where the debtor lives with a spouse or cohabitant, the reserved amount is set taking account of the partner's financial ability to contribute to the family's shared costs. The principle should therefore be stated expressly in the Enforcement Code; it is objectively justified for both spouses and cohabitants, and there is no reason to depart from an order that has applied for many years. The committee backs all the legislative proposals in the bill — which also aim at higher sale prices for seized property and greater confidence in the enforcement system — and rejects the motion seeking an exemption for cohabitants.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 1 (S, MP)
The reservation (S, MP) backs the government's proposal for a more efficient and modernised enforcement procedure in the main, but wants the wording on cohabitants struck from the statutory text. The proportioning principle would thus not be codified for cohabitants, so that a cohabitant's financial capacity is not weighed in when the debtor's reserved amount is set.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
V–
S–
MP–
C–
L–
KD–
M–
SD–
YesNoAbstainAbsent
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: adopting the government's legislative proposal and rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 1 by S, MP.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
The plan's stance / Actual vote
AI
Vote
Confidence
Evidence
V
–
Yes 21/0/0/0
Sown reservation
–
No 0/106/0/0
MPown reservation
–
No 0/18/0/0
C
–
Yes 24/0/0/0
L
–
Yes 16/0/0/0
KD
–
Yes 19/0/0/0
M
–
Yes 65/0/0/1
SD
–
Yes 70/0/0/0
Committee proposal
The Riksdag adopts the government's proposal for
1. Act on amendment to the Enforcement Code,
2. Act on amendment to the Act (1981:775) on the introduction of the Enforcement Code,
3. Act on amendment to the Tax Procedure Act (2011:1244),
4. Act on amendment to the Coast Guard Act (2019:32),
5. Act on amendment to the Customs Authority Act (2024:710),
6. Act on amendment to the Act (2026:000) on amendment to the Act (1981:775) on the introduction of the Enforcement Code.
The Riksdag thereby approves Government Bill 2025/26:224 items 1-6 and rejects motion
2025/26:4008 by Joakim Järrebring et al. (S).
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen antar regeringens förslag till
1. lag om ändring i utsökningsbalken,
2. lag om ändring i lagen (1981:775) om införande av utsökningsbalken,
3. lag om ändring i skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244),
4. lag om ändring i kustbevakningslagen (2019:32),
5. lag om ändring i tullbefogenhetslagen (2024:710),
6. lag om ändring i lagen (2026:000) om ändring i lagen (1981:775) om införande av utsökningsbalken.
Därmed bifaller riksdagen proposition 2025/26:224 punkterna 1-6 och avslår motion
2025/26:4008 av Joakim Järrebring m.fl. (S).
Riksdag decision: The Riksdag agreed to the government's proposal to streamline and modernize the Kronofogde Authority's ability to collect a debt.
The legislative changes mean that the Kronofogde Authority with the help of several law enforcement agencies to a greater extent will be able to seize property without being on site. This applies when the agencies encounter movable property in their activities.
Furthermore, it is proposed that an explicit provision be introduced that the Kronofogde Authority shall take into account the proportionality principle in debt collection. This means, among other things, that a distraint shall not be more intrusive for a person than necessary. It also introduces a rule that the child's best interests shall always be considered.
The government's proposal also means that immovable property and cooperative apartments shall be treated equally to as great an extent as possible in debt collection.
The purpose of the legislative changes is that higher selling prices for distrained property can be achieved, that more debts will be paid faster, and that confidence in the enforcement system will increase.
The legislative changes shall enter into force on July 1, 2026.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants to reject the proposal to codify the proportionality principle for cohabitants in debt enforcement proceedings. (S, MP) — Reservation 1