Activities of Igor ŠOLTES related to 2018/2056(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Combating late payment in commercial transactions (debate) SL
Amendments (6)
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas under Directive 2011//7/EU (Late Payment Directive), public authorities bear a ‘special responsibility’10 in fostering a business environment supportive of timely payments; _________________ 10whereas, despite this special responsibility, late payments should be fought regardless of whether the debtor belongs to the public or the private sector; _________________ 10 Recital 6 of Directive 2011/7/EU. Recital 6 of Directive 2011/7/EU.
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the Late Payment Directive provides inter alia for payment periods for business-to-business (B2B) and public authority-to-business (PA2B) transactions, automatic entitlement to interest for late payment, a minimum of EUR 40 in compensation for recovery costs, and statutory interest of at least 8 % above the European Central Bank’s reference rate; whereas a more uniform set of rules aimed at achieving a reasonable level of compensation, simplifying what creditors and debtors can expect in terms of recovery costs and involving an increase in the statutory interest rate for late payment would ensure that all debtors are treated fairly and subject to proportionate but dissuasive penalties;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that in sectors particularly vulnerable to long payment terms, Member States could consider establishing stricter payment terms; notes that some Member States have limited the standard payment term to 30 days (instead of the 60 days set out in the Late Payment Directive), while only a few Member States have introduced maximum payment terms (from which the parties cannot derogate); notes furthermore that at sector level the introduction of maximum payment terms is more common; considers that legislation setting out stricter payment terms would be effective in reducing payment terms to some extent and, provided that it is enforced, would create a level playing field between large and small companies; believes that legislation defining payment terms differentiated by category of products or services is relevant in promoting fair practices and addressing sectoral specificities; points out however that a more uniform and simplified set of rules would clarify what creditors and debtors can expect in case of late payment and thereby improve predictability of their economic activities; considers appropriate to increase slightly the statutory interest for late payment, for instance up to nine points of percentage instead of eight;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Points out that, despite the fact that the Late Payment Directive was adopted in February 2011, thousands of SMEs and start-ups across Europe go bankrupt every year while waiting for their invoices to be paid, including by national public authorities; calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider mandatory forms of adequate compensation or offsetting for companies owed money by a public authoritydebtor, regardless of whether the debtor belongs to the public or the private sector, so that they are not forced to go bankrupt because of it;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Member States and the Commission, in the light of the recent case law of the Court of Justice (Case C- 555/14), to take the necessary steps to ensure that public authoritieall debtors pay their suppliers on time and that creditors receive automatic interest and compensation when payments are late;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16