Relevance of the Case
A payment order is an efficient and rapid legal tool through which creditors can recover claims that are certain, liquid, and due, without the need for lengthy civil proceedings.
The creditor must show the existence of a claim arising from a document signed by both parties, which is not contested by the debtor. The procedure is fast, based on written evidence, without complex proof-taking. This has particular practical value in commercial relationships, offering companies a simplified way to recover debts. By using the payment order, both costs and the time needed to obtain an enforceable judgment are significantly reduced.
Summary of the Facts
In essence, a contract was concluded between the creditor company, as lessor and service provider, and the debtor, a public enterprise within the meaning of Government Emergency Ordinance 109/2011, as lessee and beneficiary of services, for the rental of machinery and the provision of earth-haulage services. Although the debtor paid some of the invoices issued by the creditor, it did not settle the entire outstanding amount.
PROCEEDINGS AT FIRST INSTANCE BEFORE THE CLUJ SPECIALIZED TRIBUNAL
Represented by Brisc Legal’s lawyers in Cluj, specialized in debt recovery, the creditor asked the court to issue a payment order compelling the defendant to pay the principal debt, as well as the amount due as contractual late-payment penalties, which represented almost half of the remaining outstanding debt.
In support of the action, the creditor showed that the claim is certain because its existence results unequivocally from the contract, from the invoices issued, from the work reports signed by the debtor, and from the partner ledger.
Further, it was shown that the claim is liquid because it is expressed in money and its amount is clearly determined, as evidenced by the documents attached.
As regards the exigibility (maturity) of the claim, the creditor referred to the date the invoices were issued and to the contractual provisions according to which each invoice had to be paid within 45 days from its issuance. The due date of each invoice was expressly indicated.
With respect to late-payment penalties, the creditor pointed out that, under the contractual provisions, penalties of 0.1% per day of delay are charged, calculated by reference to the outstanding amount, for the entire period between the due date and the date of payment.
The debtor, by way of statement of defence, requested dismissal of the action on the grounds that the amount claimed by the creditor was not a certain, liquid, and due claim. In support, it argued that, following a reconciliation of the company’s financial-accounting situation and the analytical partner ledger, a series of invoices were not recorded in the debtor company’s accounting. The debtor also argued that the outstanding balance did not appear in its records and that some invoices had not been communicated to it.
The Cluj Specialized Tribunal, in line with the arguments developed by the Brisc Legal team, granted the payment order and ordered the debtor to pay all the amounts claimed—both the principal and the late-payment penalties—and awarded court costs representing the court fee and attorney’s fee.
In this regard, the court found that, from the documents submitted by the creditor, it appears that the invoices stated as unrecorded in the debtor’s accounting were in fact communicated to the debtor by email, to the official address indicated in the contract header, with communications specifying each invoice sent.
The court stated that invoices which contain all the elements necessary to determine the contractual obligation—namely the nature of the service provided, quantity, price, and, where applicable, the payment term—are recognized as having the probative value provided by the Civil Procedure Code even if they are not signed.
The court considered the debtor’s defences regarding non-acceptance of the invoices to be unfounded, since the invoices were issued precisely on the basis of data communicated by the debtor, and no convincing argument was put forward to support the alleged lack of certainty and liquidity of the claim pursued by the creditor. Essential to this reasoning was the fact that the work reports were signed by the debtor’s representatives and agents.
PROCEEDINGS ON THE APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT
The debtor filed an application for annulment seeking a reduction of the late-payment penalties, arguing that the 45-day payment term—and from which penalties begin to accrue—should be calculated from the proven date of communication of the invoices rather than from their issuance. Thus, the debtor sought to exclude at least part of the amounts representing penalties, claiming that the invoices had been communicated later than their issuance date.
Reiterating the arguments raised at first instance, the creditor—through Brisc Legal’s Cluj lawyers—showed that all work reports on the basis of which the invoices were issued had been drawn up by the debtor. Therefore, from the moment the debtor sent the work reports to the creditor, the debtor already knew it had 45 days to pay the invoices.
The appellate court determined that, despite the debtor’s unfounded assertions, the Cluj Specialized Tribunal had correctly calculated the amount of late-payment penalties, and therefore dismissed the application for annulment, maintaining the payment order in full as grounded in fact and law.