Short Reads

Act against unreasonably long payment effective as of 1 july 2017

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

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

09.08.2019 NL law
Verifieerbare vorderingen, de stand van zaken na Credit Suisse/Jongepier q.q.

Articles - De afgelopen jaren heeft de Hoge Raad verschillende arresten gewezen over de invloed van het faillissement op wederkerige overeenkomsten, het fixatiebeginsel en de kwalificatie van vorderingen als boedelvordering, verifieerbare vordering of nietverifieerbare vordering. In het arrest van 23 maart 2018 (hierna: Credit Suisse/Jongepier q.q.) verduidelijkt de Hoge Raad ter beantwoording van enkele prejudiciële vragen wanneer vorderingen die voortvloeien uit een ten tijde van het faillissement reeds bestaande rechtsverhouding voor verificatie in aanmerking komen.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring