Receivables management and EU late payment: status of the planned reform

As of 2026-07-26, proposal COM(2023) 533 for an EU regulation on late payment remains in the legislative process. Proposed requirements must therefore not be presented as binding law. German claims continue to be governed in particular by the contract, the BGB (German Civil Code) and existing European rules. Businesses should monitor the procedure but should not change payment terms, reminders or interest calculations to rules that have not been adopted. Any update should state its source and effective date. For the specific issue “status of the planned reform”, this requirement should be recorded in the review note with its date and supporting evidence.

For the focus “status of the planned reform”, a short review note should record the facts, the rule applied and the legal or data date on which the statement is based. The contract, invoice, evidence of performance and communications should be brought together in one case file. In “status of the planned reform”, this control determines whether the standard workflow applies or an individual review is required.

Whether the debtor acted as a business or consumer affects default interest, the 30-day rule, information duties and communication. For consumers, the 30-day rule requires a specific notice; statutory default interest is generally five percentage points above the German basic rate. For payment claims with no consumer involved, it is generally nine percentage points above the basic rate. Classification depends on the particular transaction, not merely on occupation or a company name. Mixed cases and sole traders therefore require a careful contract review. For “status of the planned reform”, the workflow should continue only after ownership, deadline and the exception route are clearly set in the system.

For recurring cases, use a checklist of mandatory fields and a four-eyes review. A green status should be assigned only when the required evidence is available; otherwise the case should be routed deliberately for clarification. For “status of the planned reform”, quality control should reconcile the balance and underlying entries once more against the original evidence.

Under section 288(5) BGB (German Civil Code), a creditor may generally claim a flat EUR 40 charge for default on a payment claim where the debtor is not a consumer. It does not arise again for every reminder. It is credited against recoverable damages to the extent those damages consist of legal recovery costs. Default interest and proven additional loss may also be available. The creditor must still establish and document default, the nature of the payment claim and the debtor’s non-consumer status. In “status of the planned reform”, this control determines whether the standard workflow applies or an individual review is required.

The workflow should move standard cases quickly while automatically routing disputes, insolvency, data-protection or limitation risks out of the standard path. Human review remains necessary where the data or legal position is not clear. The outcome for “status of the planned reform” should record the current balance, next date, reason for the decision and responsible person. Receivables management should automate standard cases while deliberately routing exceptions for review.

Clear payment terms, milestones, advance payments, security and credit limits reduce risk before the due date. Terms must be validly incorporated into the contract and stated consistently in orders and invoices. Credit limits should reflect turnover, payment history, credit risk and concentration and should be reviewed regularly. Sales exceptions need approval and an expiry date. Where arrears rise, further supply, continued performance and security should be reviewed legally and commercially rather than allowing the limit to grow silently. For “status of the planned reform”, quality control should reconcile the balance and underlying entries once more against the original evidence.

Before escalation, reconcile bank entries, credit notes, returns, partial payments, objections, insolvency signals and limitation dates. An item shown as open in accounting is not automatically due or undisputed; the decision must follow from the complete file. For the specific issue “status of the planned reform”, this requirement should be recorded in the review note with its date and supporting evidence.

Effective receivables management assigns clear roles: sales maintains contract and contact data, operational teams preserve performance evidence, accounting posts and reminds, legal or collection teams assess escalation, and management sets risk limits. Approval thresholds should cover disputes, high values, instalments, write-offs and supply stops. A regular review examines both metrics and individual cases. Shared definitions prevent different departments from handling the same customer with different balances or deadlines. The outcome for “status of the planned reform” should record the current balance, next date, reason for the decision and responsible person.

The process ends with a documented decision stating the current balance, next deadline and responsible person. Fortis Inkasso GmbH & Co. KG can then handle suitable undisputed claims out of court, without implying a guarantee of recovery or legal outcome. For “status of the planned reform”, the workflow should continue only after ownership, deadline and the exception route are clearly set in the system.