The IOS procedure: avoid the courts when recovering undisputed claims
The IOS-procedure
Since 2016, the law has provided for an administrative procedure for the recovery of undisputed and payable monetary debts in B2B relationships. This “IOS procedure” allows companies to obtain an enforceable title without first having to go through traditional court proceedings, and thus constitutes an efficient and time-saving alternative.
How does it work?
After the undisputed nature of the claim and other conditions have been verified by a lawyer, an IOS procedure can be initiated with the bailiff. The IOS procedure consists of four stages.
- First, the bailiff will serve a demand for payment on the debtor concerned. The demand for payment will also be accompanied by the supporting exhibits and a reply form provided by law.
- The debtor subsequently has a period of one month to respond by either paying the debt or applying for payment facilities, or by disputing the debt (in whole or in part) by using the reply form. If the debtor disputes the debt, then this marks the end of the IOS procedure and a switch to regular court proceedings.
- If the debtor does not respond or does not comply with the agreed payment facilities, then the bailiff must issue a declaration of non-contestation after a waiting period of eight days.
- Thereafter, the declaration of non-contestation is declared enforceable by a magistrate, and so becomes an enforceable title that then allows the bailiff to proceed to execution.
Advantages and disadvantages
The IOS procedure provides numerous advantages for companies. For instance, the procedure is fast: there is no need to go to court and wait for a judgment. Moreover, the procedure is inexpensive, as no registration fees must be paid on the deeds, and court fees and summons costs are also eliminated. Furthermore, the bailiff can already carry out a thorough solvency check of the debtor during the IOS procedure. As a result, lawyer fees will also be limited.
Nevertheless, the IOS procedure also has some disadvantages. For instance, interest and damages are limited to 10% of the principal amount of the debt and there is no procedural indemnity. Another disadvantage is that the debtor can contest the claim during the IOS procedure and even after the declaration of enforceability, which means the bailiff would then be obliged to discontinue the procedure. In that case, the matter should still be decided in the framework of regular court proceedings.
Recovery of undisputed claims outside Belgium
Since 2018, it is possible to initiate an IOS procedure not only on behalf of creditors registered in Belgium, but also on behalf of creditors that are registered in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Italy, Spain and Austria. Therefore, if the creditor is registered in one of these seven equated countries, one can still start an IOS procedure provided that their (professional) debtor is established in Belgium. In practice, however, the bailiffs’ system for registering these foreign creditors occasionally encounters ICT-related problems in this regard.
If the debtor is established outside Belgium (but in the EU), there is the possibility of initiating a similar European procedure, namely the European Order for Payment Procedure. Here again, the claim must be a fixed, payable and undisputed claim. This procedure is entirely in writing through a set of standard forms and is applicable in all European member states (except Denmark). A difference with the IOS procedure is that the European Order for Payment Procedure is also open to individuals and consumers, and not only to companies.
Conclusion
There are several options available for the efficient recovery of outstanding monetary debts, including the IOS procedure. Although the IOS procedure offers many advantages, there are inevitably cases where this procedure is not the preferred option or is in fact not possible. In that case, there are other possibilities, such as the European Order for Payment Procedure or obtaining a provisional judgment at the initiation hearing.
In any case, these measures are best combined with additional (conservatory or executive) attachment measures or negotiations.
For further information, please contact Bart Heynickx (bart.heynickx@altius.com) or Charlotte Vandeurzen (charlotte.vandeurzen@altius.com).
Written by
Recommended articles
The new Product Liability Directive
The new Product Liability Directive (“PLD”) replaced the old Product Liability Directive (Directive 85/375/EEC) and aims to bring the European Union’s product liability regime ‘up to speed’ with the digital age, circular economy business models and global supply chains. It also focuses on improving the harmonisation of the common rules on liability for defective products and tackling the difficulties faced by victims when gathering evidence to prove product liability. This blog focuses on the main changes the PLD brings. Entry into force The […]
Read onThe circulation of judgments between Belgium and the United Kingdom: towards a new balance under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention?
Brexit dismantled the Brussels I Recast regime for the UK and resulted in a fragmented framework of domestic rules and a residual treaty. However, the entry into force of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention for the UK partially restores judicial cooperation in the post-Brexit era. The Brussels I recast regime Before Brexit, the United Kingdom […]
Read onThe Supreme Court’s recent Decision on the Burden of Proof in State Immunity Matters Alters the Dynamics of Sovereign Debt Recovery
On 19 December 2024, the Belgian Supreme Court made a significant decision that has clarified the complexities surrounding State immunity, the burden of proof, and the obligation of debtor States to cooperate in that respect. This ruling not only clarifies existing legal principles but also introduces nuanced considerations regarding how factual presumptions can be utilised to meet evidentiary requirements in cases involving sovereign immunity.
Read on