A creditor’s obligation to assess the creditworthiness of a consumer
by Ganado Advocates
23rd April 2024
by Ganado Advocates
13th January 2023
Summary
On 1 December 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”), in delivering a ruling in the case of DOMUS-Software-AG vs. Marc Braschoß Immobilien GmbH (Case C-370/21), clarified that where a single contract provides for periodic delivery of goods or provision of services each requiring payment within a specific period, the fixed minimum sum of compensation for recovery costs due to creditors under Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions (recast) (“Late Payment Directive”) is due for each late payment and not due once for all late payments within the single contract.
Background to the case and judicial proceedings before the German courts
The parties to the proceedings had entered into a contract for the maintenance of software which was acquired by Marc Braschoß Immobilien GmbH (“MBI”). The contract catered for monthly payments which would be payable by MBI to DOMUS-Software-AG (“DSA”) at the beginning of each billing period. Between September 2019 and January 2022, DSA issued three separate invoices which remained unpaid.
DSA instituted proceedings against MBI before the Amtsgericht München (Local Court, Munich, Germany) in order to obtain (i) payment of the principal amount due under the three invoices and (ii) payment of interest and (iii) payment of the minimum fixed compensation for recovery of costs in accordance with Article 6 of the Late Payment Directive. DSA claimed that the latter should amount to EUR 120, i.e. EUR 40 for each invoice due. Although the Amtsgericht München (Local Court, Munich, Germany) decided in favour of DSA in respect of (i) the principal amount due and (ii) interest due, it held that based on the transposition of the Late Payment Directive in German law, DSA would be entitled to only one fixed payment of EUR 40 as compensation for recovery of costs despite the fact that three separate invoices had not been paid.
DSA appealed this decision before the Landgericht München I (Regional Court, Munich I, Germany) (the “Referring Court”) and requested that MBI be ordered to pay a further EUR 80 as the fixed sums for compensation of recovery costs for the other two invoices. The Referring Court decided to stay the proceedings and referred the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling to determine whether in cases of periodic claims for payment arising from a single contractual relationship, Article 6 of the Late Payment Directive (read in conjunction with Article 3 thereof) is to be interpreted as entitlement to payment of a fixed sum of at least EUR 40 for each individual late payment or whether it is payable only once, irrespective of the number of late payments.
Legal Context
The Late Payment Directive was introduced mainly to combat late payments in commercial transactions. It establishes that a ‘late payment’ subsists, if in commercial transactions between undertakings, the creditor has fulfilled its contractual and legal obligations but has not received the amount due by the debtor within the contractual or statutory period of payment (provided the debtor is not responsible for the delay). Article 3 of the Late Payment Directive establishes that the creditor is in such instances entitled to interest for late payment without the requirement of providing a reminder to the debtor. Furthermore, Article 6 of the Late Payment Directive establishes inter alia that the creditor who is entitled to interest for late payment is entitled also to compensation for the creditor’s own recovery of payment costs which as a minimum is a fixed sum of EUR 40 (but which may be higher if costs exceed EUR 40).
CJEU’s Legal Considerations
The CJEU considered various provisions within the Late Payment Directive and made reference to a similar judgement which was decided a couple of months earlier.
The CJEU held that Article 6 and Article 3 of the Late Payment Directive do not make any reference to whether payments which have not been made arise from a single contract or from various separate contracts. In fact, it referred to Recital 17 of the Late Payment Directive which simply states, “where the creditor does not have the sum owed at his disposal on the due date.”
The CJEU after taking into consideration the definition of ‘late payment’ as well as Article 1(2) of the Late Payment Directive, held that the entitlement to interest for late payment and the entitlement to a fixed minimum sum of compensation (under Article 3 and Article 6 of the Late Payment Directive respectively) are linked to individual commercial transactions, therefore each commercial transaction should be considered individually.
Moreover, the CJEU made reference to Article 5 of the Late Payment Directive and more importantly to Recital 22 thereof which held that each instalment or payment should not only be paid in accordance with the terms agreed to by the parties but should be subject to the rules for late payment. For this reason, the CJEU held that compensation for recovery of costs is payment for each instalment which has not been paid by the agreed date.
Importantly, in order to confirm the above interpretation, the CJEU took into consideration the purpose and aims of the Late Payment Directive. The Late Payment Directive’s scope, as indicated in various Articles and Recitals therein, is to protect creditors whose liquidity and financial management may be prejudiced due to late payments made by debtors (especially in relation to SMEs) and to in turn ensure proper functioning of the internal market and competition between undertakings. The provisions introduced by the Late Payment Directive should serve to discourage debtors from paying their creditors late, through the use of interest (which should not be too low) and compensation for the recovery of costs, including administrative costs and internal costs, incurred by creditors in an attempt to obtain payment for services or goods which it has duly provided to a debtor.
Consequently, the CJEU held that Article 6 of the Late Payment Directive would be deprived of any practical effect if it were to be construed as imposing one fixed minimum sum payable by way of compensation for the recovery of costs in respect of numerous delays in payments by a debtor for periodic delivery of goods or provision of services under a single contract. Moreover, this would deprive the creditor from its entitlement to the fixed sum of compensation for recovery of costs without any objective reason and such derogation would in effect be exempting the debtor from the financial burden which the Late Payment Directive intends to impose.
CJEU’s Ruling
In light of the above considerations and in accordance with the scope of the Late Payment Directive, the CJEU held that where two undertakings enter into a single contract which provides for periodic deliveries of goods or provision of services, each requiring payment within a specified period, then Article 6 of the Late Payment Directive is to be interpreted as imposing an obligation on debtors to pay a minimum fixed sum of EUR 40 by way of compensation for recovery costs to the creditor for each late payment.
by Ganado Advocates
23rd April 2024
by Ganado Advocates
5th April 2024
by CSB Group
5th April 2024
by Bank of Valletta
21st March 2024
by Bank of Valletta
18th March 2024
by Ganado Advocates
4th March 2024
by Ganado Advocates
23rd February 2024
by HSBC Bank Malta p.l.c.
19th February 2024
by Bank of Valletta
29th January 2024
by Bank of Valletta
17th January 2024
by CSB Group
12th January 2024
by Ganado Advocates
3rd January 2024
by Ganado Advocates
3rd January 2024
by Ganado Advocates
3rd January 2024
by Bank of Valletta
28th November 2023
by Bank of Valletta
23rd November 2023
by Bank of Valletta
3rd November 2023
by Ganado Advocates
1st November 2023
by Ganado Advocates
1st November 2023
by Ganado Advocates
1st November 2023
by Griffiths + Associates Ltd
31st October 2023
by Ganado Advocates
16th October 2023
by Bank of Valletta
29th September 2023
by Bank of Valletta
31st August 2023
by Bank of Valletta
28th August 2023
by Ganado Advocates
16th August 2023
by Ganado Advocates
16th August 2023
by Ganado Advocates
11th August 2023
by APS Bank plc
31st July 2023
by Ganado Advocates
28th June 2023
by Ganado Advocates
28th June 2023
by Ganado Advocates
28th June 2023
by Ganado Advocates
26th May 2023
by Bank of Valletta
7th May 2023
by Infocredit Group Limited
3rd May 2023
by Bank of Valletta
14th April 2023
by Ganado Advocates
10th April 2023
by CSB Group
14th March 2023
by Ganado Advocates
24th February 2023
by CSB Group
21st February 2023
by Griffiths + Associates Ltd
20th February 2023
by FinanceMalta
14th February 2023
by Bank of Valletta
31st January 2023
by CSB Group
19th January 2023
by Ganado Advocates
13th January 2023
by Bank of Valletta
27th December 2022
by Bank of Valletta
21st November 2022
by BNF Bank plc
18th November 2022
by Bank of Valletta
3rd November 2022
by FinanceMalta
28th October 2022
by BNF Bank plc
6th October 2022
by Bank of Valletta
16th September 2022
by Bank of Valletta
2nd September 2022
by CSB Group
31st August 2022
by Bank of Valletta
11th August 2022
by BNF Bank plc
10th August 2022
by Griffiths + Associates Ltd
29th July 2022
by Griffiths + Associates Ltd
25th July 2022
by BNF Bank plc
14th July 2022
by Bank of Valletta
3rd June 2022
by Infocredit Group Limited
19th May 2022
by The Malta Institute of Accountants
13th May 2022
by Griffiths + Associates Ltd
9th May 2022
by Griffiths + Associates Ltd
3rd May 2022
by Infocredit Group Limited
28th April 2022
by Infocredit Group Limited
8th April 2022
by Infocredit Group Limited
8th April 2022
by Ganado Advocates
24th February 2022
by Bank of Valletta
16th February 2022
by BNF Bank plc
12th January 2022
by BNF Bank plc
3rd December 2021
by Western Union Business Solutions
1st November 2021
by FinanceMalta
8th July 2021
by FinanceMalta
8th July 2021
by FinanceMalta
8th July 2021
by Bank of Valletta
28th June 2021
by FinanceMalta
18th June 2021
by Bank of Valletta
1st June 2021
by Bank of Valletta
26th May 2021
by Bank of Valletta
25th May 2021
by Bank of Valletta
18th May 2021
by Bank of Valletta
17th May 2021
by Bank of Valletta
7th May 2021
by FinanceMalta
29th April 2021
by Bank of Valletta
13th April 2021
by Bank of Valletta
18th February 2021
by Western Union Business Solutions
5th February 2021
by FinanceMalta
14th January 2021
by Bank of Valletta
4th January 2021
by Bank of Valletta
21st December 2020
by Bank of Valletta
18th December 2020
by Bank of Valletta
18th December 2020
by Bank of Valletta
30th November 2020
by Bank of Valletta
29th September 2020
by Infocredit Group Limited
23rd September 2020
by Bank of Valletta
14th September 2020
by Bank of Valletta
14th September 2020
by Bank of Valletta
2nd September 2020
by Bank of Valletta
19th August 2020
by APS Bank plc
3rd August 2020
by Bank of Valletta
31st July 2020
by Bank of Valletta
31st July 2020
by Ganado Advocates
17th July 2020
by FinanceMalta
10th June 2020