The Complainant was elucidated that the Constitutional Court has not considered unconstitutional the applicable provision, in so far as it admits the attachment of the Christmas or holiday bonuses in an amount which, added to the wage, exceeds the national minimum wage. The complainant was also elucidated that the union due withheld is not part of the compulsory deductions, being only the latter considered to assess the net amount of payments, required to determine what is or not attachable. (67) It is up to the worker to decide if it pays directly the union due or through the employer. In conclusion, the complainant was informed on the regularity of the terms applied by the grouping to comply with the salary attachment order. • Case Q-1469/16 Entity addressed: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, I.P. (Fisheries and Agriculture Financing Institute - IFAP) Date: 2016.08.26 Subject: National and European Funds. Agriculture. Repayment of aid. Period of limitation A complaint was directed to the Ombudsman by the heiress of a guarantor of a project supported by the forestry measures on farms, which aimed the refund of an aid repayment, considering that the debt was time-barred. The position forwarded by IFAP reiterated the understanding already expressed to the complainant, i.e., the debt which payment was claimed, and that turned out to be made on 15 June 2007, was not time-barred. IFAP justified the lack of notification of the project guarantor, first with his psychic incapacity certified by a court and, then, with the respective death. In view of the above, the Ombudsman concluded that it could not urge IFAP to acknowledge the debt time-barring, which would be required to refund the amount paid in the framework of the tax enforcement. (67)  In fact, according to article No. 738 of the Civil Procedural Code: «1 – Two thirds of the net amount of salaries are not attachable (...). 2 – For the purpose of calculating the net amount previously referred, only the compulsory deductions are considered. 3 - The unseizability established in paragraph 1 has as (...) minimum limit, when the debtor has no other income, an amount equivalent to one national minimum wage (...)». 124 |