Activities of Richard SULÍK related to 2018/2056(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Combating late payment in commercial transactions (debate) SK
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions PDF (488 KB) DOC (68 KB)
Amendments (27)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas payments are the bloodstream of businesses, and viable and efficient business environments depend on prompt payments toare often conductive for enableing businesses to expand, invest, create employment, generate broader economic growth and benefit the European economy in general;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas large businesses may have more resources at their disposal than SMEs to protect themselves against late payments, e.g. via pre-payment, credit checks, debt collection, bank guarantees or credit insurance, and aremay also be better placed to take advantage of the global low interest rate environment to increase their investments;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas across company sizes, SMEs are the most likely to accept unfailonger payment terms or have them imposed on them by larger companies, owing to an imbalance of power and, owing to the fear of damaging business relations and losing a future contract;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas late payment still accounts forplays a role in 1 in 4 bankruptcies in the EU;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas problems leading to late payment mustcould be addressed through a combination of legal and voluntary measures, with targeted interventions involving the Commission, Member States and business associations; whereas such a combination would include preventive measures targeting issues arising before a transaction takes place and remedial solutions addressing issues after a transaction has been completed; whereas any intervention, whether regulatory or voluntary, should take into account the specificities of the economic sector concerned;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)
Recital P a (new)
Pa. whereas the Commission implementation report 2016 was concluded with a number of recommendations for actions that could accelerate the positive impact of the Late Payment Directive, without suggesting any legislative modifications;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that the introduction of the mandatory publication of information in specific databases and registries concerning payment behaviour can discourage late payment and help businesses choose reliable commercial partners; considers that the ‘name and shame’ factor and public access to information can be an incentive for companboth, companies and public authorities to improve their payment practices and uphold their monetary obligations;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Member States and business associations to set up national and regional free andconsider, where appropriate, setting up confidential mediation services (mediation, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication) accessible to all companies, as an alternative to court proceedings, to resolve payment disputes and maintain business relations, but also to educate the companies about their rights and remedies against late payment;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Member States to enforce their national legislation and to encourage and improve stricter controls, in particular among large compan among public authorities, and the use of administrative sanctions (reinforced through a ‘name and shame’ provision that generates peer pressure), thus contributing to the improvement of their payment behavior; maintains that direct intervention from the public authorities, since it is they who enforcement of administrative sanctions, could help to overcome the ‘fear factor’ and relieve private creditors of the responsibility to take action against public debtors, as the public enforcement authorities would directly enforce the law and take discretionary action against enterprispublic authorities engaged in bad payment practices; believes that the value of sanctions and their cumulative nature could deter companpublic authorities from paying late, while public access to information (publication of sanctions) could directly harm the company’sir image;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes with great concern the situation in some Member States, where public authorities have greatly delayed payments for goods and/or services supplied to them by undertakings with the health sector being one of the most affected sectors, leading those businesses into extreme financial difficulties; believes that in order to support businesses whose financial management is complicated by delayed payments from public authorities, the Member States should put in place faster and more efficient VAT refund procedures, especially for SMEs;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Maintains that certain concepts of the Directive, such as ‘grossly unfair’, and when contractual payment terms begin and end could be clarified, either in the Directive or through guidance issued by the Commission; notes also the emerging case law of the Court of Justice on the interpretation of certain concepts of the Directive (i.e. ‘undertaking’, ‘commercial transaction’ and ‘grossly unfair’ in Cases C-256/15 and C-555/14);
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses that making payments quickly is absolutely essentialoften important for the survival and growth of businesses; notes that fintech and digital technologies are revolutionising the means and speed of payments; expects, therefore, a sharp increase in electronic invoicing and the gradual replacement of traditional types of payment with innovative types (e.g. supply chain financing, factoring, etc.), so that the creditor can be paid in real time as soon as the invoice is issued;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes with concernAcknowledges the conclusions of the Commission report, which state that the main reason for creditor firms failing to exercise their rights under the Late Payment Directive is the fear of damaging good business relationships; believes, in this regard, that action should be taken to make it easier for SMEs to enforce the rights granted under the Late Payment Directive; calls, in this context, for further examination of the possibility, set out under Article 7(5) of the Late Payment Directive, for organisations officially representing undertakings to take action before Member States’ courts on the grounds that contractual terms or practices are grossly unfair;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Asks the Commission to ensure the full and adequate implementation of existing obligations before introducing any new legislation;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to foster ‘a decisive shift towards a culture of prompt payment’12 where appropriate by taking the most appropriatsuitable measures, including, where necessary, legislative initiatives, taking into account the abovementioned proposals; _________________ 12 particular softer measures such as guidance and best practices; _________________ 12 Recital 12 of Directive 2011/7/EU. Recital 12 of Directive 2011/7/EU.
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Asks the Commission to consider simplifying the Late Payment Directive to improve the level of its implementation as the last resort when all the softer measures failed to bring effective results. In this regard reminds the Commission of its commitment to “do less, more efficiently”;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21b. Asks Member States and the Commission to not further limit the contractual freedom;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Asks the Commission to concentrate its efforts on the payment culture of public authorities which should be an example of a payment culture. Improving their payment culture would automatically improve the payment culture of the private sector, since a lot of private companies have problems with late payment as a direct or indirect consequence of payment delays of public authorities; in some instances, Member States themselves obstruct the correct application of the Late Payment Directive, as they get unfair advantages;
Amendment 109 #
22b. Recommends to Member States and the Commission publishing a list of public authorities with most payment delays;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Asks the Commission to comprehensively assess also practical barriers in claiming creditors´ rights including lengthy judicial procedures, administrative, financial and other barriers which prevent a practical implementation of the Late Payment Directive. Otherwise, any new legislation may only exacerbate the existing problems;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Asks Member States and the Commission to support sharing of the best practices concerning late payment and issue non-binding guidelines based on available information;