Directive 2011/7/EU gives every business creditor in the EU something many hauliers and forwarders still don’t know they have. From the moment the debtor falls into arrears and statutory interest for late payment becomes due, the creditor is automatically entitled to a fixed compensation for recovery costs of at least EUR 40 as the Directive itself states, without the necessity of a reminder and without having to prove any actual loss. It is due by operation of law.
Crucially for the transport sector, where working with a single contractor typically means dozens of separate orders, the Court of Justice of the EU has confirmed (case C-287/17) that the fixed compensation is due for each commercial transaction separately. Ten unpaid freight invoices means ten separate compensations. Some Member States have gone even further than the EU minimum, introducing tiered amounts that rise with the value of the debt.
But the real power of the provision lies elsewhere. Under Article 6(3) of the Directive, the creditor is also entitled to reasonable compensation for any recovery costs exceeding the fixed sum. The Directive’s recitals spell out what this means in practice: these costs include, among others, expenses incurred in instructing a lawyer or employing a debt collection agency. In other words: if a haulier entrusts the recovery of an overdue invoice to a professional collection firm, that firm’s fee can be passed on to the debtor. It is the debtor not the creditor who ultimately pays for the fact that the invoice was not settled on time.
One rule across the continent
Because Directive 2011/7/EU is a harmonising instrument, the same core mechanism operates in every country where European hauliers run their trucks. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, the Benelux countries each has transposed the Directive into national law, in commercial codes, civil codes or dedicated late payment statutes. The names of the provisions differ; the logic does not. A debtor in Duisburg, Lyon or Valencia is subject to the same principle: the costs of professional debt recovery fall on the party that failed to pay.
Remarkably, the mechanism also works beyond the EU. In the United Kingdom a key market for continental haulier the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 provides for a fixed sum (£40, £70 or £100 depending on the size of the debt) plus recovery of reasonable collection costs exceeding that sum. Brexit changed nothing here.
For a haulier or forwarder operating across Europe, this is a fundamental message. The “debtor pays for collection” model rests on a uniform legal foundation across practically the entire continent regardless of where the contractor is based. And it is no theoretical construct: specialised transport sector collection firms apply this model every day.
Pactus.eu, for example a company with roots in the Trans.eu Group conducts amicable collection at the debtor’s expense in seventeen countries: Poland, Germany, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Spain, Bulgaria, Belgium, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Austria, Croatia, Portugal and Luxembourg covering nearly all the main corridors of European road transport.
Litigation abroad: a bill that hurts before any judgment is handed down
To appreciate the value of this mechanism, it is enough to set it against the alternative pursuing a foreign debtor through the courts.
Upfront costs. Litigation means financing your own claim. Court fees in many jurisdictions calculated as a percentage of the amount in dispute lawyers’ fees, advances on procedural steps: all payable before any ruling. Reimbursement? Only after a final judgment and, worse, only after successful enforcement. In an industry where operating margins hover around 2–4%, freezing several thousand euros to chase a €1,500 invoice can be lethal for liquidity.
Translations and service of documents. A cross-border dispute means sworn translations of the transport order, the CMR consignment note, correspondence and demand letters. In a dispute over a single freight invoice, translation costs alone can reach a double-digit percentage of the claim. Add to this the cross-border service of documents under Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 a procedure that takes weeks even when authorities cooperate smoothly, and months when they don’t.
Time. A realistic horizon for obtaining an enforceable title in a cross-border dispute is 12–24 months. And the title is only the beginning: enforcement then has to be carried out in a foreign jurisdiction, under foreign procedures, usually with the help of a local lawyer. Amicable collection conducted by a negotiator in the debtor’s own language closes successful cases in weeks.
Jurisdictional risk. Transport disputes are further complicated by Article 31 of the CMR Convention and its interplay with the Brussels I bis Regulation. Choosing the right court is far from obvious even for experienced counsel and getting it wrong means losing on purely formal grounds before anyone ever looks at the merits.
Business relationships. A lawsuit almost always ends the commercial relationship for good. Yet in transport, the debtor is often a large forwarder the haulier wants and needs to keep working with. Amicable collection allows the money to be recovered without burning bridges. Paradoxically, the very fact that the cost of collection falls on the debtor has a disciplining effect: dragging out payments stops being free credit.
The economics: when litigation stops making sense
A typical road-transport receivable is worth €500-3,000. Add it up: court fees, translations, legal representation, service of documents, then enforcement abroad. The total cost of pursuing the claim often approaches the value of the receivable itself and sometimes exceeds it. Economically, litigating a small cross-border freight claim is irrational, and debtors know it perfectly well. This very calculation underpins the pathology of “borrowing from your haulier”.
Amicable collection with costs transferred to the debtor reverses that calculation. The creditor pays no entry costs and freezes no cash, while the debtor knows that if the case lands with a collection agency, the bill for recovery will be theirs. The profitability of stalling payments to a client who uses this service simply disappears.
The limits of the mechanism an honest caveat
It should be remembered that the mechanism applies to commercial transactions between businesses -it does not cover disputes with consumers. And where a debtor consistently refuses to pay despite professional collection efforts and the sanctions that come with them, litigation remains a last resort that can never be entirely ruled out. The point is precisely that it should be the last resort not the first reflex.
The takeaway for the industry
The EU legislator has given creditors a tool tailor-made for the problems of the transport sector: fragmented receivables, foreign debtors, chronic payment gridlock. Amicable debt collection at the debtor’s expense combines what litigation cannot offer: speed, no upfront costs, no language barrier, and a chance to preserve the business relationship. Whoever fails to pay on time should bear the consequences. The law says so explicitly -all it takes is to use it.
