Given that many overindebted households have low or no assets and income, governments have increasingly tried to adapt their consumer bankruptcy regimes to the needs and capacities of these NINA (“no income, no assets”) debtors. Most notably, since the mid‐2000s, some countries from the Anglosphere have created low‐cost, means‐tested, and administrative (i.e., nonjudicial) debt relief procedures as alternative to traditional bankruptcy for NINA debtors. By contrast, in some European countries such as Germany, legislators have tried—but until today failed—to create efficient debt relief measures for NINA debtors. This contribution aims to make English‐speaking readers familiar with the history of consumer insolvency law in Germany, with a focus on legislative developments regarding NINA debtors, and to identify actors, institutions, and ideas that have contributed—especially during the 2000s—to the failure of consumer bankruptcy reforms addressing the main problems of NINA cases in Germany (i.e., high hurdles to relief for debtors, high administrative efforts for trustees and courts, high costs for the public purse, and yet very few payments to creditors). The German case is relevant not only because it is a striking case of failure to adapt a debt relief regime to NINA debtors but also because German consumer bankruptcy law—despite its shortcomings—continues to serve as a template for insolvency law reforms in European and other countries.

中文翻译：

---

德国“无收入，无资产”债务人的债务减免障碍：以消费者破产法改革失败为例

鉴于许多负债累累的家庭资产或收入很低或没有资产，政府越来越多地试图使其消费者破产制度适应这些NINA（“无收入，无资产”）债务人的需求和能力。最值得注意的是，自2000年代中期以来，来自盎格鲁圈的一些国家/地区建立了低成本，经过经济审查和行政（即非司法）债务减免程序，以替代NINA债务人的传统破产程序。相比之下，在德国等一些欧洲国家，立法者曾试图为NINA债务人制定有效的债务减免措施，但直到今天仍未通过。这项工作旨在使说英语的读者熟悉德国消费者破产法的历史，重点关注有关NINA债务人的立法发展，并确定参与者，机构，尤其是在2000年代期间，针对解决德国NINA案件主要问题的消费者破产改革失败（例如，为债务人提供救济的重重障碍，对受托人和法院的高行政管理努力，对公众的高昂成本）做出的贡献和想法（尤其是在2000年代）钱包，但很少支付给债权人）。这起德国案件之所以相关，不仅因为这是一个未能使债务减免制度适应NINA债务人的惊人案例，而且因为德国消费者破产法（尽管有其缺点）继续作为欧洲和其他国家破产法改革的模板国家。公共钱包的成本很高，但付给债权人的款项却很少。这起德国案件之所以相关，不仅因为这是一个未能使债务减免制度适应NINA债务人的惊人案例，而且因为德国消费者破产法（尽管有其缺点）继续作为欧洲和其他国家破产法改革的模板国家。公共钱包的成本很高，但付给债权人的款项却很少。这起德国案件之所以相关，不仅因为这是一个未能使债务减免制度适应NINA债务人的惊人案例，而且因为德国消费者破产法（尽管有其缺点）继续作为欧洲和其他国家破产法改革的模板国家。