Cassation 12th of October 2017.
In a judgment of 12 October 2017 (C.17.0120), the Court of Cassation confirms that the administrative procedure for the recovery of undisputed monetary debts provided for in art. 1394/20 Judicial Code is optional. The creditor retains the option of recovering the monetary debts through ordinary judicial proceedings, without being liable for legal costs.
What preceded.
From 2 July 2016, creditors can collect their undisputed money debts “business to business” via an entirely new procedure, the IOS procedure or the recovery procedure for undisputed money debts. The IOS procedure is part of the first potpourri Act of Minister of Justice Koen Geens (art. 1394/20 et seq. Judicial Code).
The IOS procedure is administrative and extrajudicial: the creditor can, at the request of his lawyer, ask the bailiff to recover the money debt, outside the court.
The bailiff then summons the debtor, issues an enforceable title and enforces the title. Only if the debtor disputes the claim does the court still have to intervene.
The IOS procedure should make the recovery of undisputed invoices faster and cheaper, which not everyone believes. Particularly in the legal profession, the IOS procedure is viewed with suspicion because of a number of disadvantages that can lead to abuse and the creditor is not always served by the IOS procedure. For this reason, the legal profession considered, among other things, that the creditor should just as well be able to turn to the court in the context of ordinary judicial proceedings, without being financially punished for this.
Indeed, a number of commercial courts, including the Commercial Court of Ghent, Kortrijk Division, ordered the creditor to pay the legal costs when he opted for the judicial procedure instead of the administrative recovery procedure, arguing that the creditor had after all opted for a more expensive recovery procedure and therefore made a mistake or was guilty of abusing process.
The choice for a judicial recovery procedure is not an error or abuse of process.
In een arrest van 12 oktober 2017 (C.17.0120) bevestigt het Hof van Cassatie dat de administratieve procedure van invordering van onbetwiste geldschulden voorzien in art. 1394/20 Gerechtelijk Wetboek facultatief is. De schuldeiser behoudt de mogelijkheid om de geldschulden in te vorderen via een gewone gerechtelijke procedure, zonder hiervoor te wordeIn a judgment of 12 October 2017 (C.17.0120), the Court of Cassation confirms that the administrative procedure for the recovery of undisputed monetary debts provided for in art. 1394/20 Judicial Code is optional. The creditor retains the option of recovering the monetary debts through ordinary judicial proceedings, without being liable for legal costs.
The choice of ordinary judicial proceedings instead of the procedure for the recovery of undisputed monetary debts does not in itself constitute an error, nor does it indicate abuse of process.
After all, according to the Court of Appeal, through the IOS procedure, interest and damages can be recovered up to a maximum of 10% of the principal sum, and at least one month and eight days elapses before an enforceable official report of non-dispute is issued. The Court clearly indicates that the two procedures have clear differences and that the creditor cannot be punished financially if he does not opt for the administrative procedure.
This ruling is important for legal practice as the highest court of the country has clearly confirmed the creditor's right of choice and the optional nature of the IOS procedure.n veroordeeld tot de gerechtskosten.
De keuze voor een gewone gerechtelijke procedure in plaats van voor de procedure van invordering van onbetwiste geldschulden maakt op zich geen fout uit, noch geeft deze blijk van procesmisbruik.
Immers, zo stelt het Hof, via de IOS-procedure kunnen interesten en schadebedingen maximaal ten belope van 10 % van de hoofdsom worden ingevorderd, én verloopt er minstens een maand en acht dagen vooraleer een uitvoerbaar verklaard proces-verbaal van niet betwisting wordt afgeleverd. Het Hof geeft hiermee duidelijk aan dat de beide procedures duidelijke verschillen vertonen en dat de schuldeiser niet financieel kan afgestraft worden wanneer hij niet kiest voor de administratieve procedure.
Deze uitspraak is belangrijk voor de rechtspraktijk vermits het hoogste rechtscollege van het land duidelijk het keuzerecht van de schuldeiser en het facultatief karakter van de IOS-procedure heeft bevestigd.
Would you like to know more about the IOS procedure? Read our related articles!