Short Reads

Act against unreasonably long payment effective as of 1 july 2017

Act against unreasonably long payment effective as of 1 july 2017

29.07.2017 NL law

On 1 July 2017, the act against unreasonably long payment terms came into effect (the 'Act').

The Act aims to shorten payment terms throughout the supply chain and for SMEs in particular. In short, the Act prohibits large companies acting as purchasers from imposing payment terms of longer than  60 days on SMEs acting as suppliers (or service providers). It does so by providing that:

  • any payment term between a large company as purchaser and an SME as a supplier over 60 days is null and void and will automatically be converted into a 30 days payment term (art. 6:119a section 6 (new) DCC);
  • if a large company makes a payment after the 30 day payment term has lapsed, it owes statutory interest over the days its payment was overdue (from 30 days onwards); and
  • parties cannot waive their right to statutory interest.

What qualifies as a large company or an SME is defined in accordance with accounting laws (Section 10, Book 2 DCC). In short, SMEs are all companies that comply with two or three of the following criteria:

  • balance sheet total < € 20 million
  • net turnover < € 40 million
  • employees < 250

Large companies are all other companies.

As of 1 July 2017 all new agreements between large companies (as purchasers) and SMEs (as suppliers) have to comply with the Act. The Act will only apply to existing agreements after 1 July 2018 (art. 183b (new) Transition Act DCC).

The Act is enforced by SMEs themselves. If a large company imposes a payment term of over 60 days and refuses to pay statutory interest over the days its payment was overdue (from 30 days onwards), the SME can initiate civil proceedings. It has five years to file its claim. After five years the claim becomes time barred, unless of course the time limit was interrupted.

Related news

19.10.2017 NL law
Annotatie onder Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden - 14-02-2017

Articles - Nu de verkoop van de inventaris meer dan een jaar voor het faillissement heeft plaatsgevonden, is het bewijsvermoeden van art. 43 Fw niet van toepassing. De stelplicht en de bewijslast ten aanzien van het paulianeus handelen rusten dan ook op de curator. De enkele omstandigheid dat het niet goed ging met de onderneming, betekent nog niet dat op dat moment te voorzien was dat een faillissement onafwendbaar was.

Read more

15.11.2017 BE law
Hof van Cassatie trekt streep door eerste schadevergoeding toegekend door Raad van State

Articles - Opdat aan de Raad van State een ontvankelijk verzoek tot schadevergoeding zou kunnen worden gericht, is onder meer vereist dat er een arrest voorligt waarin de Raad van State de onwettigheid van een handeling vaststelt. Het Hof van Cassatie verduidelijkt in een arrest van 15 september 2017 wat moet worden begrepen als een "arrest waarbij de onwettigheid wordt vastgesteld". Een arrest dat de intrekking vaststelt, valt er volgens het Hof niet onder.

Read more

02.10.2017 NL law
Judgement beyond the ambit of the legal dispute

Short Reads - In its judgment of 14 July 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1357 the Supreme Court decided that the pleadings did not provide sufficient basis for the decision of the Court of Appeal that the contractor's claim was also based on joint and several liability of the alleged client. Moreover, the pleadings provided no evidence that the alleged client acknowledged that the contractor considered the alleged client jointly and severally liable.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy