Recently, the question of what a creditor can do in the event of enforcement proceedings against a natural person as debtor, if he or she is subject to personal insolvency proceedings, in particular if the creditor's claims have not yet been settled, has become an increasingly pressing issue. As a creditor, we are often confronted with the question of what we can do if the (enforcement) court rejects our application for enforcement or suspends or even stops the enforcement proceedings due to the opening of personal insolvency proceedings. Claims arising before the commencement of the personal insolvency proceedings are subject to the same rules as in the case of insolvency proceedings against a legal person. Thus, the creditor shall declare all claims arising up to the date of the opening of the personal insolvency proceedings in the insolvency proceedings against the debtor. The problem for the creditor, as is the case today with the (enforcement) courts, arises in relation to claims arising after the opening of the personal insolvency proceedings. Unlike in the case of bankruptcy of a legal person, personal bankruptcy does not result in the dissolution of the natural person, which is why certain costs or claims arise even after the personal bankruptcy has been opened, if these costs are not settled. The question is therefore how to get the (enforcement) courts to treat such claims as a cost of the personal bankruptcy proceedings, which are an exception under Article 131 of the Personal Bankruptcy Code. The legislator treats claims arising after the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings as costs of the bankruptcy proceedings. Operating costs incurred after the commencement of the personal insolvency proceedings, which include the obligation to pay for the services of a compulsory public utility, e.g. municipal waste management, are to be treated as current costs of necessity for the continuation of life. Taking into account the above and the nature of the public service activity of municipal waste management, a creditor in bankruptcy of a legal person is entitled to remove the waste container and to discontinue the service. However, in the case of a public municipal waste management service provided by a creditor to a natural person, the creditor has no such option at all, as it is prevented from removing the container by environmental legislation. The case-law that is being developed therefore puts the creditor in a no-win situation - it cannot stop providing services to a natural person who is subject to personal insolvency proceedings on the grounds of environmental legislation, while, on the other hand, the case-law grants such a person a longer-term 'reprieve' from paying for services, despite the fact that he still exists and is polluting the environment with the waste he produces. This practice causes economic harm to public service operators, who are obliged to hand over every kilogram of waste collected for further treatment, at a direct cost to themselves. In the case of payments, this cost is covered by the price of the waste management service, but otherwise represents a direct cost to the public service operator. If this practice is allowed to continue, it is necessary to ensure that public service operators are subsidised in some way for this part of the cost-neutral price.