Spain – Powers of Representation of Companies

3. Juni 2021

  • Spanien
  • Unternehmen

What a director of a company in Spain must do to resign? Is it enough to send a communication to the company stating his resignation? Or does he have to call a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute? Or does he even have to do something else?

A recent Supreme Court ruling dated July 12, 2022 (STS 561/2022) has resolved an interesting case related to the resignation of a sole director of an LLC, confirming that resigning is not as simple as it may seem.

The SC, indeed, established that a sole director, to resign, must not only prove that he validly called a Shareholders‘ Meeting for the appointment of a substitute, but he must also prove that he did everything necessary during the interim period (i.e.: the time between the resignation and the holding of the Meeting) to meet the needs of management and representation of the company and to avoid damages. Even, and this is the case discussed in the STS, requiring the presence of a notary at the Meeting, if so required by shareholders representing at least 5% of the share capital.

The case recently ruled by the SC involved a company with two shareholders: the majority partner with 75% of the capital, and the minority partner (and sole administrator) with 25%. The sole administrator resigned and called a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute. The majority shareholder required the presence of a Notary at the Meeting; but the resigning director refused, stating that – following his resignation – he had no obligation regarding the Meeting.

On the day of the Meeting, the majority shareholder was present, but neither the resigning administrator nor the Notary were, therefore the Shareholder’s Meeting was not held.

The administrator filed the deed of resignation with the Commercial Registry and the majority shareholder – at the same time – filed a document denouncing that the resigning administrator had not requested the presence of a Notary at the Meeting, despite having been requested to do so.

Thereafter, several resolutions with very different contents were issued. The Commercial Registrar suspended the registration of the resignation, but the „Dirección General del Notariado y de los Registros“ (General Directorate of Notaries and Registries) decided that the resignation should be registered. The Commercial Court of Barcelona confirmed this last decision, and so did the Provincial Court. But the Supreme Court finally gave reason to the Mercantile Registrar.

The rulings in favor of the registration of the resignation argued, firstly, that the outgoing administrator exhausted his responsibilities by convening the Shareholder’s Meeting; and secondly, that the Registrar must examine only if a document may be entered in the register, without considering the „extra-registry reality“, such as the document presented by the majority shareholder complaining about the administrator’s actions.

The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the absence of a Notary, validly requested by the majority shareholder, rendered ineffective all the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. Based on this, the Supreme Court considered it „logical“ that in such a case the administrator should not only call the Shareholder’s Meeting but also require the presence of a Notary, in order to grant the validity of the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. With respect to the second controversial issue, the Supreme Court ruled that the Registrar, although exceptionally, can take into account certain circumstances or facts of which he has „registry evidence“, even if they do not appear by virtue of documents presented for their inscription, as long as they are related to the „inscribable“ document.

In short, this interesting case shows that resigning as an administrator is not an easy activity. In general, although there is no specific provision on the subject in the Spanish system, the resigning administrator must not only call a Shareholder’s Meeting, but also remain administrator on an interim basis and attend to his obligations until the Shareholder’s Meeting is held; then, if the Shareholder’s Meeting is not held due to the non-attendance of the shareholders or if the shareholders do not appoint a substitute administrator, nothing more is required from the resigning administrator.

Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Obersten Gerichtshofs Spaniens kann ein Handelsvertreter Anspruch auf Ausgleichszahlungen für die Kundschaft haben, wenn Artikel 28 des Handelsvertretergesetzes analog angewendet wird (die „inspirierende Idee„). Dieser Ausgleich wird für den Handelsvertreter auf der Grundlage der in den letzten fünf Jahren erhaltenen Vergütungen berechnet.

In einem Vertriebsvertrag gibt es jedoch keine „Vergütungen“, wie sie der Handelsvertreter erhält (Provisionen, Festbeträge oder andere), sondern „Handelsspannen“ (Differenzen zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis). Es stellt sich also die Frage, welche Größenordnung für die Kundenvergütung in einem Vertriebsvertrag in Betracht zu ziehen ist: Entweder die „Bruttomarge“ (die bereits erwähnte Differenz zwischen dem Einkaufs- und dem Wiederverkaufspreis) oder die „Nettomarge“ (dieselbe Differenz, aber abzüglich anderer Ausgaben und Steuern, die dem Vertriebshändler entstanden sind).

Die bisherige Schlussfolgerung schien darin zu bestehen, die Vergütung des Vertriebshändlers aus seinen „Bruttomargen“ zu berechnen, da dies eine Größe ist, die eher mit der „Vergütung“ des Handelsvertreters vergleichbar ist: Andere Ausgaben und Steuern des Vertriebshändlers konnten nicht in der gleichen Weise abgezogen werden wie bei einem Handelsvertretervertrag, bei dem weder Ausgaben noch Steuern abgezogen wurden.

Der Oberste Gerichtshof (17. November 1999) hatte darauf hingewiesen, dass es für die Berechnung der Entschädigung für die Kunden „angemessener ist, sie als Bruttobeitrag zu betrachten, da der Vertreter damit alle Auslagen seiner kommerziellen Organisation decken muss„. Außerdem stellen die „erzielten Einkünfte“ „keine Vergütung im gleichen Sinne dar“ (21. Oktober 2008), da solche „Leistungen“ „zum internen Bereich der eigenen Organisation des Vertreters gehören“ (12. März 2012).

Kürzlich wurde jedoch in einem Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 1. März 2017 (bestätigt durch ein weiteres Urteil vom 19. Mai 2017) die Auffassung vertreten, dass die Bestimmung der Höhe der Kundenentschädigung in einem Vertriebsvertrag nicht auf der Grundlage der vom Vertriebshändler erzielten „Bruttomargen“ erfolgen kann, sondern auf der Grundlage der „Nettomarge“. Um zu dieser Schlussfolgerung zu gelangen, verweist das Gericht auf ein Urteil desselben Gerichts aus dem Jahr 2016 sowie auf weitere Urteile aus den Jahren 2010 und 2007.

Bedeutet dies eine Änderung der Rechtsprechung? Meiner Meinung nach ist diese Lesart des Obersten Gerichtshofs nicht richtig. Lassen Sie uns sehen, warum.

Im Urteil vom März 2017 wird der Disjunktiv zwischen Brutto- und Nettomarge im zweiten Rechtsgrund erwähnt und bezieht sich auf das Urteil von 2016.

In diesem Urteil aus dem Jahr 2016 heißt es, dass in einem anderen Urteil aus dem Jahr 2010 zwar nicht entschieden wurde, ob die Berechnung auf der Grundlage der Brutto- oder der Nettomarge erfolgen muss, in einem früheren Urteil aus dem Jahr 2007 jedoch eingeräumt wurde, dass der vom Händler erzielte Nettogewinn (Gewinn nach Abzug von Kosten und Steuern) und nicht die Marge, d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis, mit der Vergütung des Vertreters vergleichbar ist.

Meines Erachtens bezieht sich der Oberste Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil vom März 2017 in letzter Instanz auf das Urteil 296/2007, was dort nicht gesagt wurde. Im Jahr 2007 bezifferte der Oberste Gerichtshof nicht die Entschädigung der Kundschaft, sondern den Schadenersatz. Genauer gesagt, und nach der Feststellung, dass „die Entschädigung der Kunden in der Klage klar und eindeutig gefordert werden muss„, kam der Gerichtshof zu dem Schluss, dass die Kammer „entscheiden muss, was den Bedingungen entspricht, unter denen die Debatte … in der ursprünglichen Klage geführt wurde. Und da … das Interesse an einer Entschädigung hauptsächlich auf der Dauer der Beziehung beruhte … besteht die Lösung, die der Rechtsprechung dieses Gerichtshofs besser entspricht, darin, als Entschädigung einen Betrag festzusetzen, der dem Nettonutzen entspricht, der durch den Vertrieb der Produkte … in dem Jahr unmittelbar vor der Beendigung des Vertrags erzielt wurde“. In diesem Urteil von 2007 entschied der Gerichtshof also nicht über die Entschädigung der Kunden, sondern über den Schadenersatz.

Auf diese Weise wurde die Schlussfolgerung aus dem Jahr 2007, den Schadensersatz auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen zu berechnen, ohne weitere Analyse auf das Jahr 2016 übertragen, allerdings für die Berechnung der Kundenentschädigung. Dieses Kriterium wird nun in den Urteilen des Jahres 2017 fast automatisch wieder aufgegriffen.

Meines Erachtens sollte jedoch trotz der Änderung der Rechtsprechung die These vorherrschen, dass bei der analogen Anwendung des Kundenausgleichs in Vertriebsverträgen die Größe, die der „Vergütung“ des Vertreters entspricht, die „Bruttomarge“ ist, die der Vertriebshändler erzielt, und nicht seine „Nettomarge“: Es macht nicht viel Sinn, dass, wenn die Analogie angewandt wird, um den Kundenausgleich an einen Vertriebshändler anzuerkennen, dieser von seinen Bruttomargenbeträgen abgezogen wird, um seine Marge oder seinen Nettogewinn zu erreichen. Der Handelsvertreter hat auch seine Ausgaben und zahlt auch seine Steuern ausgehend von seinen „Vergütungen“, und nichts in der Richtlinie 86/653/EWG oder im Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag erlaubt es, solche Beträge abzuziehen, um seine Kundenvergütung zu berechnen. Meiner Meinung nach sollten daher die Vertriebshändler gleichgestellt werden: Die Größen, die verglichen werden könnten, sollten die (Brutto-)Vergütungen des Vertreters mit den (Brutto-)Margen des Vertriebshändlers sein (d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis).

Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die Urteile vom 1. März und 19. Mai 2017 auf einem meines Erachtens früheren Irrtum beharren und zusätzliche Verwirrung in einer Frage stiften, die bereits erörtert wurde: Die analoge Anwendung der Kundenentschädigung auf die Vertriebsverträge und die Berechnungsmethode.

Aktualisierungsmitteilung (27. Januar 2020)

In einem kürzlich ergangenen Beschluss („Auto“) des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 20. November 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 über die Unzulässigkeit eines Rechtsmittels) hatte der Gerichtshof Gelegenheit, auf diese Frage zurückzukommen und die Kriterien der letzten Rechtsprechung zu bestätigen: Die  in den Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigende Größe für die Anwendung der Analogie und die Berechnung der Goodwill-Entschädigung sind die „Nettomargen“ .

In diesem Verfahren legte ein Vertriebsunternehmen Berufung gegen die Entscheidung des Landgerichts Barcelona ein, das den Ausgleich auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen und nicht der Bruttomargen anerkannte. Der Händler beantragte beim Obersten Gerichtshof die Aufhebung dieses Urteils mit der Begründung, dass es nach der neuesten Rechtsprechung ergangen sei, die nach Ansicht des Rechtsmittelführers fehlerhaft sei.

Der Oberste Gerichtshof scheint jedoch zu bestätigen, dass im Gegensatz zu der These, die ich oben in diesem Beitrag vertreten habe, „kein angeblicher Fehler in der jüngsten Rechtsprechung bei der analogen Auslegung von Art. 28.3 des Gesetzes über den Handelsvertreter für den Vertriebsvertrag und somit auch nicht die Notwendigkeit besteht, die jüngste Rechtsprechung zu diesem Thema zu überprüfen“. Wenn der Oberste Gerichtshof seine jüngste Rechtsprechung nicht überprüft und das Urteil, in dem die Nettomargen angewandt wurden, für akzeptabel hält, müssen wir folglich davon ausgehen, dass die Größenordnung, die bei der Entschädigung der Kundschaft in Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigen ist, die Nettomargen und nicht die Bruttomargen sind.

Mit dieser Entscheidung scheint  das Gericht also die Diskussion zu beenden, die jedoch meiner Meinung nach weiterhin zu zahlreichen Diskussionen führen wird.

Artists (actors, singers) and sportsmen, non-residents in Spanish territory, who occasionally carry out their artistic or sporting activities in Spain, are usually unaware of their tax obligations before the Spanish Tax Authorities.

In this respect, we would like to point out that, in the last year, the inspection activity of the Spanish Tax Administration has increased considerably in relation to these taxpayers. This is a consequence of the fact that the Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan of the State Agency issued by the Spanish Tax Administration (AEAT) expressly included the intensification of the control of the income obtained by non-resident artists and sportsmen who act or develop an activity in Spain within the year 2020.

Spanish legislation, which regulates the Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR), establishes literally that: it is considered income obtained in Spanish territory, among others, that which derives, directly or indirectly, from the personal performance in Spanish territory of artists and sportsmen, and that which derives from any other activity related to such performance, even if it is received by a person or entity other than the artist or sportsman.

This means that the artist or sportsman who performs an activity in Spain for which he or she obtains income, is subject to tax obligations and to the payment of taxes in Spain and must declare not only the income directly related to his or her performance but also other income linked to his or her professional performance, such as sponsorships, image rights, etc…

The above is understood regardless of whether the actual recipient of the income derived from the athlete’s or artist’s performance is the artist or athlete himself or herself, a company in which he or she has any interest, or a third individual or legal entity with no apparent connection to the athlete or artist.

Therefore, even if the company that pays such income is a non-resident in Spanish territory and the payment takes place physically outside such territory, any income obtained in Spain will be considered subject to tax (19% for EU residents and 24% for non-EU residents) when it is obtained on account of the artistic or sporting activity carried out in the Spanish territory.

Most of the double taxation international treaties that Spain has signed with other countries allow the country in which the activity of the artist or athlete takes place to tax the income generated from such activity. All these agreements also establish mechanisms to avoid double taxation, but this possibility is considerably complicated when, as in many cases, the artist or sportsman receives his income through a company incorporated in his country of residence or in a third country instead of receiving it directly as an individual.

Often the contracts signed by artists and sportsmen are signed by companies related to them -usually domiciled in their country of residence-, this situation is giving rise to serious difficulties for them to deduct in their country of residence (and within the scope of Corporate Income Tax) the tax paid in Spain as an individual.

We therefore want to highlight (i) the existence of important tax obligations that affects artists and sportsmen who are not resident in Spanish territory for the activities they carry out in Spain and, furthermore, (ii) the need for them to receive adequate prior advice on the tax consequences of their activity and, consequently, on the best vehicle to formalize their contracting.

Summary

One of the issues when setting up a (subsidiary) company in Spain which creates more practical difficulties is the question of powers of attorney: What is a power of attorney, are they necessary and how do they work? In Spain this question is of practical relevance and its operation does not always coincide with what happens in other countries. In this commentary, we will give you some ideas on how to act with these powers of attorney when setting up a company.

What is a power of attorney? A power of attorney allows a person (attorney-in-fact or representative) to act on behalf of a company. The attorney-in-fact may, for example, sign a contract on behalf of a company if that company has given him or her the power (authority) to do so. For example, borrowing money from a bank.

To do this the company will have two types of representatives: an „organic representative“ (the directors) and „voluntary representatives“ (attorneys-in-fact).

First, a company must have at least one director

The director(s) is the „organic representative“. In other words, he/she is an organ (management body) of the company, represents it and can contract on its behalf.

This „organ“ may be a single person (a single director), it may be several persons acting individually or jointly, or it may be a board of directors („collegial body“). The power of representation resides in the „organ“. It is the body that represents the company and not necessarily its members.

The first task, therefore, is to decide on the structure of the body, and this is taken when the company is incorporated, although it can be changed later. In this way, the sole director will have all the powers to represent the company, the individual directors will also have them if they are „joint and several” or will have to act jointly if they are „joint“ directors, and the board will also have them, but as a body (not each director individually).

This last remark (the powers are held by the body and not necessarily by its members) is important when the company is managed by a board of directors. The fact that there is a board of directors does not imply that each member has the powers to represent the company, but that they are held by the body as a whole. The board may, however, delegate them. When the board delegates the powers to one of its directors (it is possible, but not obligatory to appoint one), the latter becomes a „managing director“ (Consejero Delegado). This director may then represent the company in all matters delegated to him/her.

Secondly, in addition to the directors, the company may have (not compulsory) other „proxies“ (empowered person)

These are the „voluntary representatives“, i.e. appointed „at the will“ of the company.

A proxy is someone to whom the company gives powers to represent it. Powers to do certain things.

As we said at the beginning, in Spain, acting by proxy is quite strict, so that a company cannot normally be represented by anyone who does not have the power to do so. For example, if the company authorises (empowers) a person only to sign banking contracts, he/she will not be able to sign contracts with employees.

The powers granted to a person must therefore be express. If a person is authorised to open a bank account, he/she is not supposed to be able to borrow money. And in this way, the powers serve as a framework for action: what the attorney-in-fact can do and what the limits are. And sometimes these limits come from the power itself (opening a bank account does not authorise borrowing) or can be quantitative (borrowing, but only up to 100,000 euros), or temporary (borrowing, but until 31 December 2025) or even requiring more than one person to act (borrowing, but co-signing with person „Z“). And, of course, a combination of all of them: attorney-in-fact „X“ can take out loans by signing with attorney-in-fact „W“ up to 100,000 euros, and with attorney-in-fact „Z“ up to 1,000,000 euros.

When setting up a company in Spain, it is therefore highly advisable to think about how the powers are to be granted, especially if the administrative body does not reside in our country. As we have seen from experience, it is not uncommon to set up a company by appointing an administrator resident abroad without appointing a proxy in Spain. This is legally valid, but, in a way, it hinders the functioning of the company: the only person to sign contracts and represent the company resides abroad, which, from a practical point of view, will be a major disadvantage.

The procedure for empowering a person is simple. All it takes is a decision of the administrative body, formalisation before a notary and registration in the Commercial Register. In this way, anyone can verify that the person appointed can represent the company in that particular act. This does require a person of trust to be found (an employee, a resident partner, a third party), but the risk can be modulated by the limitation possibilities described above.

In conclusion

When setting up a company in Spain, if the administrator will not be resident in Spain, consider how to organise the powers of attorney, whom to empower and how to limit, if necessary, their powers.

And the powers of attorney that you will need most and most urgently are:

  • (a) those that will allow you to contract with banks (opening and managing bank accounts),
  • (b) those relating to employees (hiring, registration with social security, payment of salaries),
  • (c) those for supply contracts (electricity, water, telephone) and other general contracts (rental, vehicles, distribution contracts); and
  • (d) managing the company’s electronic signature (relations with public administrations, tax payments).

Failure to take this decision in a timely manner could delay or hinder the activity being started.

And if in doubt, it is best to consult a local lawyer.

Arbitration is a procedure for resolving disputes between parties that is very successful in the Anglo-Saxon legal system. But much less in our country.

Arbitration has advantages and disadvantages; it is more expensive than the Courts, but it is much quicker; and speed is essential for justice to be such.

Typically, an arbitration lasts six months plus a couple of months for the appointment of the arbitrator; in total, a dispute, however important and difficult it may be, can be definitively resolved in eight months.

To compare with the Courts, in Spain today it takes on average eighteen months to obtain a judgement at first instance and another eighteen months for an appeal; without considering the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The cornerstone on which arbitration rests is that the arbitral award is final and definitive and cannot be reviewed or appealed; this statement has certain exceptions, mainly of a formal or procedural nature: basically, the legality of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the matter and the procedural regularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. These defects can be attacked by means of an action for annulment, which is heard by the ordinary courts.

But in addition to the possible “formal” defects, the action for annulment can be based on the allegation of a breach of “public order”, which the Constitutional Court has defined and outlined as “those public and private, political, moral and economic legal principles which are absolutely obligatory for the preservation of society in a given people and at a given time”.

As this definition of “public order” is undoubtedly broad and unspecific, the use of the violation of public order as a tool for declaring the nullity of arbitral awards by the ordinary courts has produced an “overflow” effect that has required, in the words of the Constitutional Court, “a restrictive interpretation of it, on pain of violating the autonomy of the will of the parties and their waiver of judicial protection”.

This is what the Court has proclaimed in the very important judgement of 15 February 2021, which is the reason for this legal note.

In recent years, the High Court of Justice of Madrid has resorted to the argument of “public order” in an extensive and “overwhelmed” manner to annul arbitral awards and “supplant the arbitral tribunal in its function of applying the law”, becoming “a second instance reviewing the facts and rights applied in the arbitral award, a control mechanism for the correct application of jurisprudence”.

And this expansive and “overwhelmed” interpretation of public order as a tool for annulling arbitral awards by the High Court of Justice of Madrid had become a serious problem for the arbitral institution and for the confidence of the contracting parties when including arbitration agreements in their contracts.

The principle that the arbitral award was the final and definitive solution to the dispute it was intended to resolve, except for procedural breaches or breaches of public order limited to those cases in which the arbitral award was arbitrary, illogical, absurd or irrational, was called into question and was a clear deterrent to contracting parties deciding to resolve their discrepancies through arbitration.

Well then, the Constitutional Court, in a categorical and explicit manner, repeating what it had already stated in its judgement of June last year, confirms that the need for the arbitral award not to contravene public order cannot result in the judicial body replacing the arbitrator in his function of applying the law, nor can it become a second instance reviewing the facts and legal grounds applied in the arbitral award, nor a mechanism for controlling the correct application of case law.

The principle of party autonomy prevails; and this means that when there is submission to arbitration, the parties have agreed that it should be through this channel that disputes between them are to be resolved, by means of the arbitrator’s decision, which can only be annulled through the strict channels that the Arbitration Act regulates; we insist, for procedural reasons or for violating public order in the restricted interpretation explained in the judgement we are commenting on; but in no case, by way of a second instance where the facts and legal grounds applied are re-evaluated once again.

In short, Spanish arbitration is to be congratulated, and will be able to recover the momentum that caused it to lose, in part, the extensive interpretation of public order defended by some High Courts of Justice. From now on, the Courts will not be able to ignore the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, which is a breath of fresh air for Spanish arbitration.

Zusammenfassung

Bei der Beendigung von Handelsvertreter- und Vertriebsverträgen ist der Hauptkonfliktpunkt die Entschädigung für den Goodwill (Kundenstamm). Das spanische Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag sieht – ebenso wie die Richtlinie über Handelsvertreter – vor, dass der Handelsvertreter bei Beendigung des Vertrags unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen Anspruch auf einen Ausgleich hat. In Spanien kann dieser Ausgleich analog (wenn auch mit Einschränkungen und Abweichungen ) auch bei Vertriebsverträgen geltend gemacht werden.

Für den Zuspruch eines  Kundenausgleichs ist es erforderlich, dass der Handelsvertreter (oder der Vertriebshändler: siehe diesen Beitrag, um mehr zu erfahren) neue Kunden gewonnen oder die Geschäfte mit bereits bestehenden Kunden erheblich ausgeweitet hat, sodass seine Tätigkeit dem Auftraggeber weiterhin erhebliche Vorteile bringen kann. Die Höhe der hierfür zu leistenden Ausgleichszahlung muss angemessen sein. All dies ist Voraussetzung für die Anerkennung des Ausgleichsanspruchs und dessen Höhe.

Diese Begriffe (neue Kunden, erhebliche Ausweitung der Geschäfte mit bestehenden Kunden, wesentliche Vorteile, Angemessenheit der Ausgleichszahlung ) sind im Vorfeld schwer zu definieren, so dass es sich empfiehlt, die Klagen vor Gericht von Fall zu Fall auf Gutachten zu stützen, die von einem Anwalt überwacht werden.

Zumindest in Spanien besteht die Tendenz, direkt den Höchstbetrag zu fordern, den die dort geltende Norm vorsieht (ein Jahresgehalt, das als Durchschnitt der letzten fünf Jahre berechnet wird), ohne eine weitere Analyse vorzunehmen. Bei einem derart pauschalen Vorgehen  besteht jedoch die Gefahr, dass ein Richter den Antrag als unbegründet zurückweist.

Aus diesem Grund und aufgrund unserer Erfahrung halte ich es für angebracht, Hinweise zu geben, wie der Anspruch auf  Entschädigung und deren Höhe sich im Einzelfall begründen lässt.

Der Vertreter/Händler, der Sachverständige und der Anwalt sollten Folgendes berücksichtigen:

Prüfen Sie, wie hoch der Beitrag des Vertreters  war

Entscheidend ist, ob  es bereits vor Vertragsbeginn Kunden gab und welches Umsatzvolumen mit ihnen erzielt wurde. Für die Anerkennung dieses Ausgleichs ist es entscheidend  ob der Vertreter die Zahl der Kunden erhöht hat oder mit bereits bestehenden Kunden arbeitet.

Analyse des fortlaufenden Kundenwerts für den Auftraggeber

Ihre Wiederkehr, ihre Loyalität (zum Auftraggeber und nicht zum Vermittler), die Abwanderungsrate (wie viele von ihnen werden nach  Vertragsabschluss beim Auftraggeber oder beim Vermittler bleiben) – nach all diesen Kriterien bemisst sich der Wert des durch den Vermittler gewonnenen Kundenstamms. In der Tat wird es schwierig sein, von einem „Kundenstamm“ zu sprechen, wenn es sich nur um sporadische, gelegentliche, nicht wiederkehrende oder nur wenige Kunden handelt, oder um Kunden, die in Zukunft dem Handelsvertreter und nicht dem Auftraggeber treu bleiben werden.

Wie verhält sich der Vermittler bei Vertragsende?

Die entscheidende Frage, die sich hier stellt: Kann er mit dem Auftraggeber konkurrieren oder gibt es Einschränkungen im Vertrag? Wenn der Handelsvertreter weiterhin dieselben Kunden betreuen kann, aber für einen anderen Auftraggeber, könnte die Entschädigung sehr wohl diskutiert werden.

Ist die Vergütung angemessen?

Untersuchen Sie hierfür, wie der Vertreter in der Vergangenheit gehandelt hat: Ob er seinen Verpflichtungen nachgekommen ist, wie er beiEinführung der Produkte oder der Markterschließung vorgegangen ist, wie sich diese Produkte oder Dienstleistungen in Zukunft entwickeln könnten usw.

Wird der Vermittler seine Provisionen verlieren?

Hier ist zu prüfen, ob der Vermittler  einer Ausschließlichkeitsbindung unterlag , ob es ihm leichter oder schwerer fiel im Anschluss, einen neuen Vertrag zu bekommen (z. B. aufgrund seines Alters, der Wirtschaftskrise, der Art der Produkte usw.) oder ob er eine neue Einnahmequelle hatte, wie sich die Umsätze in den letzten Jahren entwickelt haben (die für eine Entschädigung in Frage kommen) usw.

Welches ist der gesetzliche Höchstwert, der nicht überschritten werden darf?

Der Jahresdurchschnitt der während der Vertragslaufzeit (oder während eines Zeitraums von 5 Jahre, wenn der Vertrag länger dauerte) erhaltenen Beträge. Dazu gehören nicht nur die Provisionen, sondern auch etwaige Festbeträge, Boni, Preise usw. oder Margen im Falle von Vertriebshändlern.

Und schließlich ist es zweckmäßig, alle analysierten Dokumente in den Bericht des Sachverständigen aufzunehmen

Wenn dies nicht geschieht und sie nur erwähnt werden, könnte dies dazu führen, dass sie von einem Richter nicht berücksichtigt werden.

Lesen Sie den praktischen Leitfaden für internationale Agenturvereinbarungen

Weitere Informationen über die wichtigsten Merkmale eines Geschäftsbesorgungsvertrags in Spanien finden Sie in unserem Leitfaden.

International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

Verification of the identity of the company

Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

Request of financial  information

What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

Use the right contract

What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

Write down your agreements

Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

Follow your contract

If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

Document all transactions

From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

Has the debtor risen objections?

Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

Seek guarantees for your credits

This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

Check out our webinar on debt collection

On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

The Spanish government has recently approved two new rules on equal pay and equality plans which will come into force in January and April 2021 and affect all companies.

1. Royal Decree 901/2020, of October 13, which regulates the equality plans and their registration

An „equality plan“ is understood to be that ordered set of measures adopted after carrying out a situation diagnosis, aimed at achieving equal treatment and opportunities between women and men in the company, and eliminating discrimination based on sex.

All companies that have 50 or more workers are obliged to draw up and apply an equality plan, its implementation being voluntary for other companies. In any case, equality plans, including previous diagnoses, must be subject to negotiation with the legal representation of the workers, in accordance with the procedure legally established for that purpose.

Regarding the content of the plans, they must include, among others, definition of quantitative and qualitative objectives, description of the specific measures to be adopted, identification of means and resources, calendar of actions, monitoring and evaluation systems, etc. In addition, they must be subject to mandatory registration in a public registry.

This new Royal Decree will enter into force on January 14, 2021.

2. Royal Decree 902/2020, of October 13, of equal pay between women and men

The purpose of this new Royal Decree is to implement specific measures that make it possible to enforce the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination between women and men in matters of remuneration.

For this, the companies and collective agreements must integrate and apply the so-called „principle of remuneration transparency„, which applied to the different aspects that determine the remuneration of workers, allows obtaining sufficient and significant information on the value attributed to such remuneration.

For the application of the aforementioned principle, the Royal Decree provides, fundamentally, two instruments:

  • remuneration registry: All companies must have an accessible remuneration registry for the legal representation of workers. It must include the average values ​​of salaries, salary supplements and extra-salary perceptions of the entire workforce (including managers and senior positions) disaggregated by sex.
  • remuneration audit: Those companies that draw up an equality plan must include a remuneration audit in it. Its purpose is to check if the company’s remuneration system complies with the effective application of the principle of equality, defining the needs to avoid, correct and prevent obstacles and difficulties that may exist.

The measures contained in this new standard will come into effect on April 14, 2021.

Ignacio Alonso

Rechtsgebiete

  • Agentur
  • Unternehmen
  • Vertrieb
  • Franchising
Kontakt Ignacio

Schreiben Sie an Ignacio





    Legalmondos Datenschutzbestimmungen lesen.
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Spain – Review of arbitration awards and public order

    17. März 2021

    • Spanien
    • Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit

    What a director of a company in Spain must do to resign? Is it enough to send a communication to the company stating his resignation? Or does he have to call a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute? Or does he even have to do something else?

    A recent Supreme Court ruling dated July 12, 2022 (STS 561/2022) has resolved an interesting case related to the resignation of a sole director of an LLC, confirming that resigning is not as simple as it may seem.

    The SC, indeed, established that a sole director, to resign, must not only prove that he validly called a Shareholders‘ Meeting for the appointment of a substitute, but he must also prove that he did everything necessary during the interim period (i.e.: the time between the resignation and the holding of the Meeting) to meet the needs of management and representation of the company and to avoid damages. Even, and this is the case discussed in the STS, requiring the presence of a notary at the Meeting, if so required by shareholders representing at least 5% of the share capital.

    The case recently ruled by the SC involved a company with two shareholders: the majority partner with 75% of the capital, and the minority partner (and sole administrator) with 25%. The sole administrator resigned and called a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute. The majority shareholder required the presence of a Notary at the Meeting; but the resigning director refused, stating that – following his resignation – he had no obligation regarding the Meeting.

    On the day of the Meeting, the majority shareholder was present, but neither the resigning administrator nor the Notary were, therefore the Shareholder’s Meeting was not held.

    The administrator filed the deed of resignation with the Commercial Registry and the majority shareholder – at the same time – filed a document denouncing that the resigning administrator had not requested the presence of a Notary at the Meeting, despite having been requested to do so.

    Thereafter, several resolutions with very different contents were issued. The Commercial Registrar suspended the registration of the resignation, but the „Dirección General del Notariado y de los Registros“ (General Directorate of Notaries and Registries) decided that the resignation should be registered. The Commercial Court of Barcelona confirmed this last decision, and so did the Provincial Court. But the Supreme Court finally gave reason to the Mercantile Registrar.

    The rulings in favor of the registration of the resignation argued, firstly, that the outgoing administrator exhausted his responsibilities by convening the Shareholder’s Meeting; and secondly, that the Registrar must examine only if a document may be entered in the register, without considering the „extra-registry reality“, such as the document presented by the majority shareholder complaining about the administrator’s actions.

    The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the absence of a Notary, validly requested by the majority shareholder, rendered ineffective all the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. Based on this, the Supreme Court considered it „logical“ that in such a case the administrator should not only call the Shareholder’s Meeting but also require the presence of a Notary, in order to grant the validity of the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. With respect to the second controversial issue, the Supreme Court ruled that the Registrar, although exceptionally, can take into account certain circumstances or facts of which he has „registry evidence“, even if they do not appear by virtue of documents presented for their inscription, as long as they are related to the „inscribable“ document.

    In short, this interesting case shows that resigning as an administrator is not an easy activity. In general, although there is no specific provision on the subject in the Spanish system, the resigning administrator must not only call a Shareholder’s Meeting, but also remain administrator on an interim basis and attend to his obligations until the Shareholder’s Meeting is held; then, if the Shareholder’s Meeting is not held due to the non-attendance of the shareholders or if the shareholders do not appoint a substitute administrator, nothing more is required from the resigning administrator.

    Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Obersten Gerichtshofs Spaniens kann ein Handelsvertreter Anspruch auf Ausgleichszahlungen für die Kundschaft haben, wenn Artikel 28 des Handelsvertretergesetzes analog angewendet wird (die „inspirierende Idee„). Dieser Ausgleich wird für den Handelsvertreter auf der Grundlage der in den letzten fünf Jahren erhaltenen Vergütungen berechnet.

    In einem Vertriebsvertrag gibt es jedoch keine „Vergütungen“, wie sie der Handelsvertreter erhält (Provisionen, Festbeträge oder andere), sondern „Handelsspannen“ (Differenzen zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis). Es stellt sich also die Frage, welche Größenordnung für die Kundenvergütung in einem Vertriebsvertrag in Betracht zu ziehen ist: Entweder die „Bruttomarge“ (die bereits erwähnte Differenz zwischen dem Einkaufs- und dem Wiederverkaufspreis) oder die „Nettomarge“ (dieselbe Differenz, aber abzüglich anderer Ausgaben und Steuern, die dem Vertriebshändler entstanden sind).

    Die bisherige Schlussfolgerung schien darin zu bestehen, die Vergütung des Vertriebshändlers aus seinen „Bruttomargen“ zu berechnen, da dies eine Größe ist, die eher mit der „Vergütung“ des Handelsvertreters vergleichbar ist: Andere Ausgaben und Steuern des Vertriebshändlers konnten nicht in der gleichen Weise abgezogen werden wie bei einem Handelsvertretervertrag, bei dem weder Ausgaben noch Steuern abgezogen wurden.

    Der Oberste Gerichtshof (17. November 1999) hatte darauf hingewiesen, dass es für die Berechnung der Entschädigung für die Kunden „angemessener ist, sie als Bruttobeitrag zu betrachten, da der Vertreter damit alle Auslagen seiner kommerziellen Organisation decken muss„. Außerdem stellen die „erzielten Einkünfte“ „keine Vergütung im gleichen Sinne dar“ (21. Oktober 2008), da solche „Leistungen“ „zum internen Bereich der eigenen Organisation des Vertreters gehören“ (12. März 2012).

    Kürzlich wurde jedoch in einem Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 1. März 2017 (bestätigt durch ein weiteres Urteil vom 19. Mai 2017) die Auffassung vertreten, dass die Bestimmung der Höhe der Kundenentschädigung in einem Vertriebsvertrag nicht auf der Grundlage der vom Vertriebshändler erzielten „Bruttomargen“ erfolgen kann, sondern auf der Grundlage der „Nettomarge“. Um zu dieser Schlussfolgerung zu gelangen, verweist das Gericht auf ein Urteil desselben Gerichts aus dem Jahr 2016 sowie auf weitere Urteile aus den Jahren 2010 und 2007.

    Bedeutet dies eine Änderung der Rechtsprechung? Meiner Meinung nach ist diese Lesart des Obersten Gerichtshofs nicht richtig. Lassen Sie uns sehen, warum.

    Im Urteil vom März 2017 wird der Disjunktiv zwischen Brutto- und Nettomarge im zweiten Rechtsgrund erwähnt und bezieht sich auf das Urteil von 2016.

    In diesem Urteil aus dem Jahr 2016 heißt es, dass in einem anderen Urteil aus dem Jahr 2010 zwar nicht entschieden wurde, ob die Berechnung auf der Grundlage der Brutto- oder der Nettomarge erfolgen muss, in einem früheren Urteil aus dem Jahr 2007 jedoch eingeräumt wurde, dass der vom Händler erzielte Nettogewinn (Gewinn nach Abzug von Kosten und Steuern) und nicht die Marge, d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis, mit der Vergütung des Vertreters vergleichbar ist.

    Meines Erachtens bezieht sich der Oberste Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil vom März 2017 in letzter Instanz auf das Urteil 296/2007, was dort nicht gesagt wurde. Im Jahr 2007 bezifferte der Oberste Gerichtshof nicht die Entschädigung der Kundschaft, sondern den Schadenersatz. Genauer gesagt, und nach der Feststellung, dass „die Entschädigung der Kunden in der Klage klar und eindeutig gefordert werden muss„, kam der Gerichtshof zu dem Schluss, dass die Kammer „entscheiden muss, was den Bedingungen entspricht, unter denen die Debatte … in der ursprünglichen Klage geführt wurde. Und da … das Interesse an einer Entschädigung hauptsächlich auf der Dauer der Beziehung beruhte … besteht die Lösung, die der Rechtsprechung dieses Gerichtshofs besser entspricht, darin, als Entschädigung einen Betrag festzusetzen, der dem Nettonutzen entspricht, der durch den Vertrieb der Produkte … in dem Jahr unmittelbar vor der Beendigung des Vertrags erzielt wurde“. In diesem Urteil von 2007 entschied der Gerichtshof also nicht über die Entschädigung der Kunden, sondern über den Schadenersatz.

    Auf diese Weise wurde die Schlussfolgerung aus dem Jahr 2007, den Schadensersatz auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen zu berechnen, ohne weitere Analyse auf das Jahr 2016 übertragen, allerdings für die Berechnung der Kundenentschädigung. Dieses Kriterium wird nun in den Urteilen des Jahres 2017 fast automatisch wieder aufgegriffen.

    Meines Erachtens sollte jedoch trotz der Änderung der Rechtsprechung die These vorherrschen, dass bei der analogen Anwendung des Kundenausgleichs in Vertriebsverträgen die Größe, die der „Vergütung“ des Vertreters entspricht, die „Bruttomarge“ ist, die der Vertriebshändler erzielt, und nicht seine „Nettomarge“: Es macht nicht viel Sinn, dass, wenn die Analogie angewandt wird, um den Kundenausgleich an einen Vertriebshändler anzuerkennen, dieser von seinen Bruttomargenbeträgen abgezogen wird, um seine Marge oder seinen Nettogewinn zu erreichen. Der Handelsvertreter hat auch seine Ausgaben und zahlt auch seine Steuern ausgehend von seinen „Vergütungen“, und nichts in der Richtlinie 86/653/EWG oder im Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag erlaubt es, solche Beträge abzuziehen, um seine Kundenvergütung zu berechnen. Meiner Meinung nach sollten daher die Vertriebshändler gleichgestellt werden: Die Größen, die verglichen werden könnten, sollten die (Brutto-)Vergütungen des Vertreters mit den (Brutto-)Margen des Vertriebshändlers sein (d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis).

    Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die Urteile vom 1. März und 19. Mai 2017 auf einem meines Erachtens früheren Irrtum beharren und zusätzliche Verwirrung in einer Frage stiften, die bereits erörtert wurde: Die analoge Anwendung der Kundenentschädigung auf die Vertriebsverträge und die Berechnungsmethode.

    Aktualisierungsmitteilung (27. Januar 2020)

    In einem kürzlich ergangenen Beschluss („Auto“) des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 20. November 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 über die Unzulässigkeit eines Rechtsmittels) hatte der Gerichtshof Gelegenheit, auf diese Frage zurückzukommen und die Kriterien der letzten Rechtsprechung zu bestätigen: Die  in den Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigende Größe für die Anwendung der Analogie und die Berechnung der Goodwill-Entschädigung sind die „Nettomargen“ .

    In diesem Verfahren legte ein Vertriebsunternehmen Berufung gegen die Entscheidung des Landgerichts Barcelona ein, das den Ausgleich auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen und nicht der Bruttomargen anerkannte. Der Händler beantragte beim Obersten Gerichtshof die Aufhebung dieses Urteils mit der Begründung, dass es nach der neuesten Rechtsprechung ergangen sei, die nach Ansicht des Rechtsmittelführers fehlerhaft sei.

    Der Oberste Gerichtshof scheint jedoch zu bestätigen, dass im Gegensatz zu der These, die ich oben in diesem Beitrag vertreten habe, „kein angeblicher Fehler in der jüngsten Rechtsprechung bei der analogen Auslegung von Art. 28.3 des Gesetzes über den Handelsvertreter für den Vertriebsvertrag und somit auch nicht die Notwendigkeit besteht, die jüngste Rechtsprechung zu diesem Thema zu überprüfen“. Wenn der Oberste Gerichtshof seine jüngste Rechtsprechung nicht überprüft und das Urteil, in dem die Nettomargen angewandt wurden, für akzeptabel hält, müssen wir folglich davon ausgehen, dass die Größenordnung, die bei der Entschädigung der Kundschaft in Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigen ist, die Nettomargen und nicht die Bruttomargen sind.

    Mit dieser Entscheidung scheint  das Gericht also die Diskussion zu beenden, die jedoch meiner Meinung nach weiterhin zu zahlreichen Diskussionen führen wird.

    Artists (actors, singers) and sportsmen, non-residents in Spanish territory, who occasionally carry out their artistic or sporting activities in Spain, are usually unaware of their tax obligations before the Spanish Tax Authorities.

    In this respect, we would like to point out that, in the last year, the inspection activity of the Spanish Tax Administration has increased considerably in relation to these taxpayers. This is a consequence of the fact that the Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan of the State Agency issued by the Spanish Tax Administration (AEAT) expressly included the intensification of the control of the income obtained by non-resident artists and sportsmen who act or develop an activity in Spain within the year 2020.

    Spanish legislation, which regulates the Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR), establishes literally that: it is considered income obtained in Spanish territory, among others, that which derives, directly or indirectly, from the personal performance in Spanish territory of artists and sportsmen, and that which derives from any other activity related to such performance, even if it is received by a person or entity other than the artist or sportsman.

    This means that the artist or sportsman who performs an activity in Spain for which he or she obtains income, is subject to tax obligations and to the payment of taxes in Spain and must declare not only the income directly related to his or her performance but also other income linked to his or her professional performance, such as sponsorships, image rights, etc…

    The above is understood regardless of whether the actual recipient of the income derived from the athlete’s or artist’s performance is the artist or athlete himself or herself, a company in which he or she has any interest, or a third individual or legal entity with no apparent connection to the athlete or artist.

    Therefore, even if the company that pays such income is a non-resident in Spanish territory and the payment takes place physically outside such territory, any income obtained in Spain will be considered subject to tax (19% for EU residents and 24% for non-EU residents) when it is obtained on account of the artistic or sporting activity carried out in the Spanish territory.

    Most of the double taxation international treaties that Spain has signed with other countries allow the country in which the activity of the artist or athlete takes place to tax the income generated from such activity. All these agreements also establish mechanisms to avoid double taxation, but this possibility is considerably complicated when, as in many cases, the artist or sportsman receives his income through a company incorporated in his country of residence or in a third country instead of receiving it directly as an individual.

    Often the contracts signed by artists and sportsmen are signed by companies related to them -usually domiciled in their country of residence-, this situation is giving rise to serious difficulties for them to deduct in their country of residence (and within the scope of Corporate Income Tax) the tax paid in Spain as an individual.

    We therefore want to highlight (i) the existence of important tax obligations that affects artists and sportsmen who are not resident in Spanish territory for the activities they carry out in Spain and, furthermore, (ii) the need for them to receive adequate prior advice on the tax consequences of their activity and, consequently, on the best vehicle to formalize their contracting.

    Summary

    One of the issues when setting up a (subsidiary) company in Spain which creates more practical difficulties is the question of powers of attorney: What is a power of attorney, are they necessary and how do they work? In Spain this question is of practical relevance and its operation does not always coincide with what happens in other countries. In this commentary, we will give you some ideas on how to act with these powers of attorney when setting up a company.

    What is a power of attorney? A power of attorney allows a person (attorney-in-fact or representative) to act on behalf of a company. The attorney-in-fact may, for example, sign a contract on behalf of a company if that company has given him or her the power (authority) to do so. For example, borrowing money from a bank.

    To do this the company will have two types of representatives: an „organic representative“ (the directors) and „voluntary representatives“ (attorneys-in-fact).

    First, a company must have at least one director

    The director(s) is the „organic representative“. In other words, he/she is an organ (management body) of the company, represents it and can contract on its behalf.

    This „organ“ may be a single person (a single director), it may be several persons acting individually or jointly, or it may be a board of directors („collegial body“). The power of representation resides in the „organ“. It is the body that represents the company and not necessarily its members.

    The first task, therefore, is to decide on the structure of the body, and this is taken when the company is incorporated, although it can be changed later. In this way, the sole director will have all the powers to represent the company, the individual directors will also have them if they are „joint and several” or will have to act jointly if they are „joint“ directors, and the board will also have them, but as a body (not each director individually).

    This last remark (the powers are held by the body and not necessarily by its members) is important when the company is managed by a board of directors. The fact that there is a board of directors does not imply that each member has the powers to represent the company, but that they are held by the body as a whole. The board may, however, delegate them. When the board delegates the powers to one of its directors (it is possible, but not obligatory to appoint one), the latter becomes a „managing director“ (Consejero Delegado). This director may then represent the company in all matters delegated to him/her.

    Secondly, in addition to the directors, the company may have (not compulsory) other „proxies“ (empowered person)

    These are the „voluntary representatives“, i.e. appointed „at the will“ of the company.

    A proxy is someone to whom the company gives powers to represent it. Powers to do certain things.

    As we said at the beginning, in Spain, acting by proxy is quite strict, so that a company cannot normally be represented by anyone who does not have the power to do so. For example, if the company authorises (empowers) a person only to sign banking contracts, he/she will not be able to sign contracts with employees.

    The powers granted to a person must therefore be express. If a person is authorised to open a bank account, he/she is not supposed to be able to borrow money. And in this way, the powers serve as a framework for action: what the attorney-in-fact can do and what the limits are. And sometimes these limits come from the power itself (opening a bank account does not authorise borrowing) or can be quantitative (borrowing, but only up to 100,000 euros), or temporary (borrowing, but until 31 December 2025) or even requiring more than one person to act (borrowing, but co-signing with person „Z“). And, of course, a combination of all of them: attorney-in-fact „X“ can take out loans by signing with attorney-in-fact „W“ up to 100,000 euros, and with attorney-in-fact „Z“ up to 1,000,000 euros.

    When setting up a company in Spain, it is therefore highly advisable to think about how the powers are to be granted, especially if the administrative body does not reside in our country. As we have seen from experience, it is not uncommon to set up a company by appointing an administrator resident abroad without appointing a proxy in Spain. This is legally valid, but, in a way, it hinders the functioning of the company: the only person to sign contracts and represent the company resides abroad, which, from a practical point of view, will be a major disadvantage.

    The procedure for empowering a person is simple. All it takes is a decision of the administrative body, formalisation before a notary and registration in the Commercial Register. In this way, anyone can verify that the person appointed can represent the company in that particular act. This does require a person of trust to be found (an employee, a resident partner, a third party), but the risk can be modulated by the limitation possibilities described above.

    In conclusion

    When setting up a company in Spain, if the administrator will not be resident in Spain, consider how to organise the powers of attorney, whom to empower and how to limit, if necessary, their powers.

    And the powers of attorney that you will need most and most urgently are:

    • (a) those that will allow you to contract with banks (opening and managing bank accounts),
    • (b) those relating to employees (hiring, registration with social security, payment of salaries),
    • (c) those for supply contracts (electricity, water, telephone) and other general contracts (rental, vehicles, distribution contracts); and
    • (d) managing the company’s electronic signature (relations with public administrations, tax payments).

    Failure to take this decision in a timely manner could delay or hinder the activity being started.

    And if in doubt, it is best to consult a local lawyer.

    Arbitration is a procedure for resolving disputes between parties that is very successful in the Anglo-Saxon legal system. But much less in our country.

    Arbitration has advantages and disadvantages; it is more expensive than the Courts, but it is much quicker; and speed is essential for justice to be such.

    Typically, an arbitration lasts six months plus a couple of months for the appointment of the arbitrator; in total, a dispute, however important and difficult it may be, can be definitively resolved in eight months.

    To compare with the Courts, in Spain today it takes on average eighteen months to obtain a judgement at first instance and another eighteen months for an appeal; without considering the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

    The cornerstone on which arbitration rests is that the arbitral award is final and definitive and cannot be reviewed or appealed; this statement has certain exceptions, mainly of a formal or procedural nature: basically, the legality of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the matter and the procedural regularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. These defects can be attacked by means of an action for annulment, which is heard by the ordinary courts.

    But in addition to the possible “formal” defects, the action for annulment can be based on the allegation of a breach of “public order”, which the Constitutional Court has defined and outlined as “those public and private, political, moral and economic legal principles which are absolutely obligatory for the preservation of society in a given people and at a given time”.

    As this definition of “public order” is undoubtedly broad and unspecific, the use of the violation of public order as a tool for declaring the nullity of arbitral awards by the ordinary courts has produced an “overflow” effect that has required, in the words of the Constitutional Court, “a restrictive interpretation of it, on pain of violating the autonomy of the will of the parties and their waiver of judicial protection”.

    This is what the Court has proclaimed in the very important judgement of 15 February 2021, which is the reason for this legal note.

    In recent years, the High Court of Justice of Madrid has resorted to the argument of “public order” in an extensive and “overwhelmed” manner to annul arbitral awards and “supplant the arbitral tribunal in its function of applying the law”, becoming “a second instance reviewing the facts and rights applied in the arbitral award, a control mechanism for the correct application of jurisprudence”.

    And this expansive and “overwhelmed” interpretation of public order as a tool for annulling arbitral awards by the High Court of Justice of Madrid had become a serious problem for the arbitral institution and for the confidence of the contracting parties when including arbitration agreements in their contracts.

    The principle that the arbitral award was the final and definitive solution to the dispute it was intended to resolve, except for procedural breaches or breaches of public order limited to those cases in which the arbitral award was arbitrary, illogical, absurd or irrational, was called into question and was a clear deterrent to contracting parties deciding to resolve their discrepancies through arbitration.

    Well then, the Constitutional Court, in a categorical and explicit manner, repeating what it had already stated in its judgement of June last year, confirms that the need for the arbitral award not to contravene public order cannot result in the judicial body replacing the arbitrator in his function of applying the law, nor can it become a second instance reviewing the facts and legal grounds applied in the arbitral award, nor a mechanism for controlling the correct application of case law.

    The principle of party autonomy prevails; and this means that when there is submission to arbitration, the parties have agreed that it should be through this channel that disputes between them are to be resolved, by means of the arbitrator’s decision, which can only be annulled through the strict channels that the Arbitration Act regulates; we insist, for procedural reasons or for violating public order in the restricted interpretation explained in the judgement we are commenting on; but in no case, by way of a second instance where the facts and legal grounds applied are re-evaluated once again.

    In short, Spanish arbitration is to be congratulated, and will be able to recover the momentum that caused it to lose, in part, the extensive interpretation of public order defended by some High Courts of Justice. From now on, the Courts will not be able to ignore the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, which is a breath of fresh air for Spanish arbitration.

    Zusammenfassung

    Bei der Beendigung von Handelsvertreter- und Vertriebsverträgen ist der Hauptkonfliktpunkt die Entschädigung für den Goodwill (Kundenstamm). Das spanische Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag sieht – ebenso wie die Richtlinie über Handelsvertreter – vor, dass der Handelsvertreter bei Beendigung des Vertrags unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen Anspruch auf einen Ausgleich hat. In Spanien kann dieser Ausgleich analog (wenn auch mit Einschränkungen und Abweichungen ) auch bei Vertriebsverträgen geltend gemacht werden.

    Für den Zuspruch eines  Kundenausgleichs ist es erforderlich, dass der Handelsvertreter (oder der Vertriebshändler: siehe diesen Beitrag, um mehr zu erfahren) neue Kunden gewonnen oder die Geschäfte mit bereits bestehenden Kunden erheblich ausgeweitet hat, sodass seine Tätigkeit dem Auftraggeber weiterhin erhebliche Vorteile bringen kann. Die Höhe der hierfür zu leistenden Ausgleichszahlung muss angemessen sein. All dies ist Voraussetzung für die Anerkennung des Ausgleichsanspruchs und dessen Höhe.

    Diese Begriffe (neue Kunden, erhebliche Ausweitung der Geschäfte mit bestehenden Kunden, wesentliche Vorteile, Angemessenheit der Ausgleichszahlung ) sind im Vorfeld schwer zu definieren, so dass es sich empfiehlt, die Klagen vor Gericht von Fall zu Fall auf Gutachten zu stützen, die von einem Anwalt überwacht werden.

    Zumindest in Spanien besteht die Tendenz, direkt den Höchstbetrag zu fordern, den die dort geltende Norm vorsieht (ein Jahresgehalt, das als Durchschnitt der letzten fünf Jahre berechnet wird), ohne eine weitere Analyse vorzunehmen. Bei einem derart pauschalen Vorgehen  besteht jedoch die Gefahr, dass ein Richter den Antrag als unbegründet zurückweist.

    Aus diesem Grund und aufgrund unserer Erfahrung halte ich es für angebracht, Hinweise zu geben, wie der Anspruch auf  Entschädigung und deren Höhe sich im Einzelfall begründen lässt.

    Der Vertreter/Händler, der Sachverständige und der Anwalt sollten Folgendes berücksichtigen:

    Prüfen Sie, wie hoch der Beitrag des Vertreters  war

    Entscheidend ist, ob  es bereits vor Vertragsbeginn Kunden gab und welches Umsatzvolumen mit ihnen erzielt wurde. Für die Anerkennung dieses Ausgleichs ist es entscheidend  ob der Vertreter die Zahl der Kunden erhöht hat oder mit bereits bestehenden Kunden arbeitet.

    Analyse des fortlaufenden Kundenwerts für den Auftraggeber

    Ihre Wiederkehr, ihre Loyalität (zum Auftraggeber und nicht zum Vermittler), die Abwanderungsrate (wie viele von ihnen werden nach  Vertragsabschluss beim Auftraggeber oder beim Vermittler bleiben) – nach all diesen Kriterien bemisst sich der Wert des durch den Vermittler gewonnenen Kundenstamms. In der Tat wird es schwierig sein, von einem „Kundenstamm“ zu sprechen, wenn es sich nur um sporadische, gelegentliche, nicht wiederkehrende oder nur wenige Kunden handelt, oder um Kunden, die in Zukunft dem Handelsvertreter und nicht dem Auftraggeber treu bleiben werden.

    Wie verhält sich der Vermittler bei Vertragsende?

    Die entscheidende Frage, die sich hier stellt: Kann er mit dem Auftraggeber konkurrieren oder gibt es Einschränkungen im Vertrag? Wenn der Handelsvertreter weiterhin dieselben Kunden betreuen kann, aber für einen anderen Auftraggeber, könnte die Entschädigung sehr wohl diskutiert werden.

    Ist die Vergütung angemessen?

    Untersuchen Sie hierfür, wie der Vertreter in der Vergangenheit gehandelt hat: Ob er seinen Verpflichtungen nachgekommen ist, wie er beiEinführung der Produkte oder der Markterschließung vorgegangen ist, wie sich diese Produkte oder Dienstleistungen in Zukunft entwickeln könnten usw.

    Wird der Vermittler seine Provisionen verlieren?

    Hier ist zu prüfen, ob der Vermittler  einer Ausschließlichkeitsbindung unterlag , ob es ihm leichter oder schwerer fiel im Anschluss, einen neuen Vertrag zu bekommen (z. B. aufgrund seines Alters, der Wirtschaftskrise, der Art der Produkte usw.) oder ob er eine neue Einnahmequelle hatte, wie sich die Umsätze in den letzten Jahren entwickelt haben (die für eine Entschädigung in Frage kommen) usw.

    Welches ist der gesetzliche Höchstwert, der nicht überschritten werden darf?

    Der Jahresdurchschnitt der während der Vertragslaufzeit (oder während eines Zeitraums von 5 Jahre, wenn der Vertrag länger dauerte) erhaltenen Beträge. Dazu gehören nicht nur die Provisionen, sondern auch etwaige Festbeträge, Boni, Preise usw. oder Margen im Falle von Vertriebshändlern.

    Und schließlich ist es zweckmäßig, alle analysierten Dokumente in den Bericht des Sachverständigen aufzunehmen

    Wenn dies nicht geschieht und sie nur erwähnt werden, könnte dies dazu führen, dass sie von einem Richter nicht berücksichtigt werden.

    Lesen Sie den praktischen Leitfaden für internationale Agenturvereinbarungen

    Weitere Informationen über die wichtigsten Merkmale eines Geschäftsbesorgungsvertrags in Spanien finden Sie in unserem Leitfaden.

    International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

    The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

    What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

    The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

    The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

    Verification of the identity of the company

    Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

    Request of financial  information

    What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

    Use the right contract

    What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

    Write down your agreements

    Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

    Follow your contract

    If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

    Document all transactions

    From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

    Has the debtor risen objections?

    Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

    Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

    In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

    Seek guarantees for your credits

    This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

    Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

    Check out our webinar on debt collection

    On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

    You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

    Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

    If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

    The Spanish government has recently approved two new rules on equal pay and equality plans which will come into force in January and April 2021 and affect all companies.

    1. Royal Decree 901/2020, of October 13, which regulates the equality plans and their registration

    An „equality plan“ is understood to be that ordered set of measures adopted after carrying out a situation diagnosis, aimed at achieving equal treatment and opportunities between women and men in the company, and eliminating discrimination based on sex.

    All companies that have 50 or more workers are obliged to draw up and apply an equality plan, its implementation being voluntary for other companies. In any case, equality plans, including previous diagnoses, must be subject to negotiation with the legal representation of the workers, in accordance with the procedure legally established for that purpose.

    Regarding the content of the plans, they must include, among others, definition of quantitative and qualitative objectives, description of the specific measures to be adopted, identification of means and resources, calendar of actions, monitoring and evaluation systems, etc. In addition, they must be subject to mandatory registration in a public registry.

    This new Royal Decree will enter into force on January 14, 2021.

    2. Royal Decree 902/2020, of October 13, of equal pay between women and men

    The purpose of this new Royal Decree is to implement specific measures that make it possible to enforce the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination between women and men in matters of remuneration.

    For this, the companies and collective agreements must integrate and apply the so-called „principle of remuneration transparency„, which applied to the different aspects that determine the remuneration of workers, allows obtaining sufficient and significant information on the value attributed to such remuneration.

    For the application of the aforementioned principle, the Royal Decree provides, fundamentally, two instruments:

    • remuneration registry: All companies must have an accessible remuneration registry for the legal representation of workers. It must include the average values ​​of salaries, salary supplements and extra-salary perceptions of the entire workforce (including managers and senior positions) disaggregated by sex.
    • remuneration audit: Those companies that draw up an equality plan must include a remuneration audit in it. Its purpose is to check if the company’s remuneration system complies with the effective application of the principle of equality, defining the needs to avoid, correct and prevent obstacles and difficulties that may exist.

    The measures contained in this new standard will come into effect on April 14, 2021.

    Javier Gaspar

    Rechtsgebiete

    • Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit
    • Vertrieb
    • Franchising
    • Rechtsstreitigkeiten
    • Sport
    Kontakt Javier

    Schreiben Sie an Javier





      Legalmondos Datenschutzbestimmungen lesen.
      This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      Spanien | Ausgleichszahlungen für Handelsvertreter und Vertriebshändler an die Kundschaft

      2. Februar 2021

      • Spanien
      • Agentur
      • Verträge
      • Vertrieb

      What a director of a company in Spain must do to resign? Is it enough to send a communication to the company stating his resignation? Or does he have to call a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute? Or does he even have to do something else?

      A recent Supreme Court ruling dated July 12, 2022 (STS 561/2022) has resolved an interesting case related to the resignation of a sole director of an LLC, confirming that resigning is not as simple as it may seem.

      The SC, indeed, established that a sole director, to resign, must not only prove that he validly called a Shareholders‘ Meeting for the appointment of a substitute, but he must also prove that he did everything necessary during the interim period (i.e.: the time between the resignation and the holding of the Meeting) to meet the needs of management and representation of the company and to avoid damages. Even, and this is the case discussed in the STS, requiring the presence of a notary at the Meeting, if so required by shareholders representing at least 5% of the share capital.

      The case recently ruled by the SC involved a company with two shareholders: the majority partner with 75% of the capital, and the minority partner (and sole administrator) with 25%. The sole administrator resigned and called a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute. The majority shareholder required the presence of a Notary at the Meeting; but the resigning director refused, stating that – following his resignation – he had no obligation regarding the Meeting.

      On the day of the Meeting, the majority shareholder was present, but neither the resigning administrator nor the Notary were, therefore the Shareholder’s Meeting was not held.

      The administrator filed the deed of resignation with the Commercial Registry and the majority shareholder – at the same time – filed a document denouncing that the resigning administrator had not requested the presence of a Notary at the Meeting, despite having been requested to do so.

      Thereafter, several resolutions with very different contents were issued. The Commercial Registrar suspended the registration of the resignation, but the „Dirección General del Notariado y de los Registros“ (General Directorate of Notaries and Registries) decided that the resignation should be registered. The Commercial Court of Barcelona confirmed this last decision, and so did the Provincial Court. But the Supreme Court finally gave reason to the Mercantile Registrar.

      The rulings in favor of the registration of the resignation argued, firstly, that the outgoing administrator exhausted his responsibilities by convening the Shareholder’s Meeting; and secondly, that the Registrar must examine only if a document may be entered in the register, without considering the „extra-registry reality“, such as the document presented by the majority shareholder complaining about the administrator’s actions.

      The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the absence of a Notary, validly requested by the majority shareholder, rendered ineffective all the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. Based on this, the Supreme Court considered it „logical“ that in such a case the administrator should not only call the Shareholder’s Meeting but also require the presence of a Notary, in order to grant the validity of the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. With respect to the second controversial issue, the Supreme Court ruled that the Registrar, although exceptionally, can take into account certain circumstances or facts of which he has „registry evidence“, even if they do not appear by virtue of documents presented for their inscription, as long as they are related to the „inscribable“ document.

      In short, this interesting case shows that resigning as an administrator is not an easy activity. In general, although there is no specific provision on the subject in the Spanish system, the resigning administrator must not only call a Shareholder’s Meeting, but also remain administrator on an interim basis and attend to his obligations until the Shareholder’s Meeting is held; then, if the Shareholder’s Meeting is not held due to the non-attendance of the shareholders or if the shareholders do not appoint a substitute administrator, nothing more is required from the resigning administrator.

      Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Obersten Gerichtshofs Spaniens kann ein Handelsvertreter Anspruch auf Ausgleichszahlungen für die Kundschaft haben, wenn Artikel 28 des Handelsvertretergesetzes analog angewendet wird (die „inspirierende Idee„). Dieser Ausgleich wird für den Handelsvertreter auf der Grundlage der in den letzten fünf Jahren erhaltenen Vergütungen berechnet.

      In einem Vertriebsvertrag gibt es jedoch keine „Vergütungen“, wie sie der Handelsvertreter erhält (Provisionen, Festbeträge oder andere), sondern „Handelsspannen“ (Differenzen zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis). Es stellt sich also die Frage, welche Größenordnung für die Kundenvergütung in einem Vertriebsvertrag in Betracht zu ziehen ist: Entweder die „Bruttomarge“ (die bereits erwähnte Differenz zwischen dem Einkaufs- und dem Wiederverkaufspreis) oder die „Nettomarge“ (dieselbe Differenz, aber abzüglich anderer Ausgaben und Steuern, die dem Vertriebshändler entstanden sind).

      Die bisherige Schlussfolgerung schien darin zu bestehen, die Vergütung des Vertriebshändlers aus seinen „Bruttomargen“ zu berechnen, da dies eine Größe ist, die eher mit der „Vergütung“ des Handelsvertreters vergleichbar ist: Andere Ausgaben und Steuern des Vertriebshändlers konnten nicht in der gleichen Weise abgezogen werden wie bei einem Handelsvertretervertrag, bei dem weder Ausgaben noch Steuern abgezogen wurden.

      Der Oberste Gerichtshof (17. November 1999) hatte darauf hingewiesen, dass es für die Berechnung der Entschädigung für die Kunden „angemessener ist, sie als Bruttobeitrag zu betrachten, da der Vertreter damit alle Auslagen seiner kommerziellen Organisation decken muss„. Außerdem stellen die „erzielten Einkünfte“ „keine Vergütung im gleichen Sinne dar“ (21. Oktober 2008), da solche „Leistungen“ „zum internen Bereich der eigenen Organisation des Vertreters gehören“ (12. März 2012).

      Kürzlich wurde jedoch in einem Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 1. März 2017 (bestätigt durch ein weiteres Urteil vom 19. Mai 2017) die Auffassung vertreten, dass die Bestimmung der Höhe der Kundenentschädigung in einem Vertriebsvertrag nicht auf der Grundlage der vom Vertriebshändler erzielten „Bruttomargen“ erfolgen kann, sondern auf der Grundlage der „Nettomarge“. Um zu dieser Schlussfolgerung zu gelangen, verweist das Gericht auf ein Urteil desselben Gerichts aus dem Jahr 2016 sowie auf weitere Urteile aus den Jahren 2010 und 2007.

      Bedeutet dies eine Änderung der Rechtsprechung? Meiner Meinung nach ist diese Lesart des Obersten Gerichtshofs nicht richtig. Lassen Sie uns sehen, warum.

      Im Urteil vom März 2017 wird der Disjunktiv zwischen Brutto- und Nettomarge im zweiten Rechtsgrund erwähnt und bezieht sich auf das Urteil von 2016.

      In diesem Urteil aus dem Jahr 2016 heißt es, dass in einem anderen Urteil aus dem Jahr 2010 zwar nicht entschieden wurde, ob die Berechnung auf der Grundlage der Brutto- oder der Nettomarge erfolgen muss, in einem früheren Urteil aus dem Jahr 2007 jedoch eingeräumt wurde, dass der vom Händler erzielte Nettogewinn (Gewinn nach Abzug von Kosten und Steuern) und nicht die Marge, d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis, mit der Vergütung des Vertreters vergleichbar ist.

      Meines Erachtens bezieht sich der Oberste Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil vom März 2017 in letzter Instanz auf das Urteil 296/2007, was dort nicht gesagt wurde. Im Jahr 2007 bezifferte der Oberste Gerichtshof nicht die Entschädigung der Kundschaft, sondern den Schadenersatz. Genauer gesagt, und nach der Feststellung, dass „die Entschädigung der Kunden in der Klage klar und eindeutig gefordert werden muss„, kam der Gerichtshof zu dem Schluss, dass die Kammer „entscheiden muss, was den Bedingungen entspricht, unter denen die Debatte … in der ursprünglichen Klage geführt wurde. Und da … das Interesse an einer Entschädigung hauptsächlich auf der Dauer der Beziehung beruhte … besteht die Lösung, die der Rechtsprechung dieses Gerichtshofs besser entspricht, darin, als Entschädigung einen Betrag festzusetzen, der dem Nettonutzen entspricht, der durch den Vertrieb der Produkte … in dem Jahr unmittelbar vor der Beendigung des Vertrags erzielt wurde“. In diesem Urteil von 2007 entschied der Gerichtshof also nicht über die Entschädigung der Kunden, sondern über den Schadenersatz.

      Auf diese Weise wurde die Schlussfolgerung aus dem Jahr 2007, den Schadensersatz auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen zu berechnen, ohne weitere Analyse auf das Jahr 2016 übertragen, allerdings für die Berechnung der Kundenentschädigung. Dieses Kriterium wird nun in den Urteilen des Jahres 2017 fast automatisch wieder aufgegriffen.

      Meines Erachtens sollte jedoch trotz der Änderung der Rechtsprechung die These vorherrschen, dass bei der analogen Anwendung des Kundenausgleichs in Vertriebsverträgen die Größe, die der „Vergütung“ des Vertreters entspricht, die „Bruttomarge“ ist, die der Vertriebshändler erzielt, und nicht seine „Nettomarge“: Es macht nicht viel Sinn, dass, wenn die Analogie angewandt wird, um den Kundenausgleich an einen Vertriebshändler anzuerkennen, dieser von seinen Bruttomargenbeträgen abgezogen wird, um seine Marge oder seinen Nettogewinn zu erreichen. Der Handelsvertreter hat auch seine Ausgaben und zahlt auch seine Steuern ausgehend von seinen „Vergütungen“, und nichts in der Richtlinie 86/653/EWG oder im Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag erlaubt es, solche Beträge abzuziehen, um seine Kundenvergütung zu berechnen. Meiner Meinung nach sollten daher die Vertriebshändler gleichgestellt werden: Die Größen, die verglichen werden könnten, sollten die (Brutto-)Vergütungen des Vertreters mit den (Brutto-)Margen des Vertriebshändlers sein (d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis).

      Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die Urteile vom 1. März und 19. Mai 2017 auf einem meines Erachtens früheren Irrtum beharren und zusätzliche Verwirrung in einer Frage stiften, die bereits erörtert wurde: Die analoge Anwendung der Kundenentschädigung auf die Vertriebsverträge und die Berechnungsmethode.

      Aktualisierungsmitteilung (27. Januar 2020)

      In einem kürzlich ergangenen Beschluss („Auto“) des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 20. November 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 über die Unzulässigkeit eines Rechtsmittels) hatte der Gerichtshof Gelegenheit, auf diese Frage zurückzukommen und die Kriterien der letzten Rechtsprechung zu bestätigen: Die  in den Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigende Größe für die Anwendung der Analogie und die Berechnung der Goodwill-Entschädigung sind die „Nettomargen“ .

      In diesem Verfahren legte ein Vertriebsunternehmen Berufung gegen die Entscheidung des Landgerichts Barcelona ein, das den Ausgleich auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen und nicht der Bruttomargen anerkannte. Der Händler beantragte beim Obersten Gerichtshof die Aufhebung dieses Urteils mit der Begründung, dass es nach der neuesten Rechtsprechung ergangen sei, die nach Ansicht des Rechtsmittelführers fehlerhaft sei.

      Der Oberste Gerichtshof scheint jedoch zu bestätigen, dass im Gegensatz zu der These, die ich oben in diesem Beitrag vertreten habe, „kein angeblicher Fehler in der jüngsten Rechtsprechung bei der analogen Auslegung von Art. 28.3 des Gesetzes über den Handelsvertreter für den Vertriebsvertrag und somit auch nicht die Notwendigkeit besteht, die jüngste Rechtsprechung zu diesem Thema zu überprüfen“. Wenn der Oberste Gerichtshof seine jüngste Rechtsprechung nicht überprüft und das Urteil, in dem die Nettomargen angewandt wurden, für akzeptabel hält, müssen wir folglich davon ausgehen, dass die Größenordnung, die bei der Entschädigung der Kundschaft in Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigen ist, die Nettomargen und nicht die Bruttomargen sind.

      Mit dieser Entscheidung scheint  das Gericht also die Diskussion zu beenden, die jedoch meiner Meinung nach weiterhin zu zahlreichen Diskussionen führen wird.

      Artists (actors, singers) and sportsmen, non-residents in Spanish territory, who occasionally carry out their artistic or sporting activities in Spain, are usually unaware of their tax obligations before the Spanish Tax Authorities.

      In this respect, we would like to point out that, in the last year, the inspection activity of the Spanish Tax Administration has increased considerably in relation to these taxpayers. This is a consequence of the fact that the Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan of the State Agency issued by the Spanish Tax Administration (AEAT) expressly included the intensification of the control of the income obtained by non-resident artists and sportsmen who act or develop an activity in Spain within the year 2020.

      Spanish legislation, which regulates the Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR), establishes literally that: it is considered income obtained in Spanish territory, among others, that which derives, directly or indirectly, from the personal performance in Spanish territory of artists and sportsmen, and that which derives from any other activity related to such performance, even if it is received by a person or entity other than the artist or sportsman.

      This means that the artist or sportsman who performs an activity in Spain for which he or she obtains income, is subject to tax obligations and to the payment of taxes in Spain and must declare not only the income directly related to his or her performance but also other income linked to his or her professional performance, such as sponsorships, image rights, etc…

      The above is understood regardless of whether the actual recipient of the income derived from the athlete’s or artist’s performance is the artist or athlete himself or herself, a company in which he or she has any interest, or a third individual or legal entity with no apparent connection to the athlete or artist.

      Therefore, even if the company that pays such income is a non-resident in Spanish territory and the payment takes place physically outside such territory, any income obtained in Spain will be considered subject to tax (19% for EU residents and 24% for non-EU residents) when it is obtained on account of the artistic or sporting activity carried out in the Spanish territory.

      Most of the double taxation international treaties that Spain has signed with other countries allow the country in which the activity of the artist or athlete takes place to tax the income generated from such activity. All these agreements also establish mechanisms to avoid double taxation, but this possibility is considerably complicated when, as in many cases, the artist or sportsman receives his income through a company incorporated in his country of residence or in a third country instead of receiving it directly as an individual.

      Often the contracts signed by artists and sportsmen are signed by companies related to them -usually domiciled in their country of residence-, this situation is giving rise to serious difficulties for them to deduct in their country of residence (and within the scope of Corporate Income Tax) the tax paid in Spain as an individual.

      We therefore want to highlight (i) the existence of important tax obligations that affects artists and sportsmen who are not resident in Spanish territory for the activities they carry out in Spain and, furthermore, (ii) the need for them to receive adequate prior advice on the tax consequences of their activity and, consequently, on the best vehicle to formalize their contracting.

      Summary

      One of the issues when setting up a (subsidiary) company in Spain which creates more practical difficulties is the question of powers of attorney: What is a power of attorney, are they necessary and how do they work? In Spain this question is of practical relevance and its operation does not always coincide with what happens in other countries. In this commentary, we will give you some ideas on how to act with these powers of attorney when setting up a company.

      What is a power of attorney? A power of attorney allows a person (attorney-in-fact or representative) to act on behalf of a company. The attorney-in-fact may, for example, sign a contract on behalf of a company if that company has given him or her the power (authority) to do so. For example, borrowing money from a bank.

      To do this the company will have two types of representatives: an „organic representative“ (the directors) and „voluntary representatives“ (attorneys-in-fact).

      First, a company must have at least one director

      The director(s) is the „organic representative“. In other words, he/she is an organ (management body) of the company, represents it and can contract on its behalf.

      This „organ“ may be a single person (a single director), it may be several persons acting individually or jointly, or it may be a board of directors („collegial body“). The power of representation resides in the „organ“. It is the body that represents the company and not necessarily its members.

      The first task, therefore, is to decide on the structure of the body, and this is taken when the company is incorporated, although it can be changed later. In this way, the sole director will have all the powers to represent the company, the individual directors will also have them if they are „joint and several” or will have to act jointly if they are „joint“ directors, and the board will also have them, but as a body (not each director individually).

      This last remark (the powers are held by the body and not necessarily by its members) is important when the company is managed by a board of directors. The fact that there is a board of directors does not imply that each member has the powers to represent the company, but that they are held by the body as a whole. The board may, however, delegate them. When the board delegates the powers to one of its directors (it is possible, but not obligatory to appoint one), the latter becomes a „managing director“ (Consejero Delegado). This director may then represent the company in all matters delegated to him/her.

      Secondly, in addition to the directors, the company may have (not compulsory) other „proxies“ (empowered person)

      These are the „voluntary representatives“, i.e. appointed „at the will“ of the company.

      A proxy is someone to whom the company gives powers to represent it. Powers to do certain things.

      As we said at the beginning, in Spain, acting by proxy is quite strict, so that a company cannot normally be represented by anyone who does not have the power to do so. For example, if the company authorises (empowers) a person only to sign banking contracts, he/she will not be able to sign contracts with employees.

      The powers granted to a person must therefore be express. If a person is authorised to open a bank account, he/she is not supposed to be able to borrow money. And in this way, the powers serve as a framework for action: what the attorney-in-fact can do and what the limits are. And sometimes these limits come from the power itself (opening a bank account does not authorise borrowing) or can be quantitative (borrowing, but only up to 100,000 euros), or temporary (borrowing, but until 31 December 2025) or even requiring more than one person to act (borrowing, but co-signing with person „Z“). And, of course, a combination of all of them: attorney-in-fact „X“ can take out loans by signing with attorney-in-fact „W“ up to 100,000 euros, and with attorney-in-fact „Z“ up to 1,000,000 euros.

      When setting up a company in Spain, it is therefore highly advisable to think about how the powers are to be granted, especially if the administrative body does not reside in our country. As we have seen from experience, it is not uncommon to set up a company by appointing an administrator resident abroad without appointing a proxy in Spain. This is legally valid, but, in a way, it hinders the functioning of the company: the only person to sign contracts and represent the company resides abroad, which, from a practical point of view, will be a major disadvantage.

      The procedure for empowering a person is simple. All it takes is a decision of the administrative body, formalisation before a notary and registration in the Commercial Register. In this way, anyone can verify that the person appointed can represent the company in that particular act. This does require a person of trust to be found (an employee, a resident partner, a third party), but the risk can be modulated by the limitation possibilities described above.

      In conclusion

      When setting up a company in Spain, if the administrator will not be resident in Spain, consider how to organise the powers of attorney, whom to empower and how to limit, if necessary, their powers.

      And the powers of attorney that you will need most and most urgently are:

      • (a) those that will allow you to contract with banks (opening and managing bank accounts),
      • (b) those relating to employees (hiring, registration with social security, payment of salaries),
      • (c) those for supply contracts (electricity, water, telephone) and other general contracts (rental, vehicles, distribution contracts); and
      • (d) managing the company’s electronic signature (relations with public administrations, tax payments).

      Failure to take this decision in a timely manner could delay or hinder the activity being started.

      And if in doubt, it is best to consult a local lawyer.

      Arbitration is a procedure for resolving disputes between parties that is very successful in the Anglo-Saxon legal system. But much less in our country.

      Arbitration has advantages and disadvantages; it is more expensive than the Courts, but it is much quicker; and speed is essential for justice to be such.

      Typically, an arbitration lasts six months plus a couple of months for the appointment of the arbitrator; in total, a dispute, however important and difficult it may be, can be definitively resolved in eight months.

      To compare with the Courts, in Spain today it takes on average eighteen months to obtain a judgement at first instance and another eighteen months for an appeal; without considering the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

      The cornerstone on which arbitration rests is that the arbitral award is final and definitive and cannot be reviewed or appealed; this statement has certain exceptions, mainly of a formal or procedural nature: basically, the legality of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the matter and the procedural regularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. These defects can be attacked by means of an action for annulment, which is heard by the ordinary courts.

      But in addition to the possible “formal” defects, the action for annulment can be based on the allegation of a breach of “public order”, which the Constitutional Court has defined and outlined as “those public and private, political, moral and economic legal principles which are absolutely obligatory for the preservation of society in a given people and at a given time”.

      As this definition of “public order” is undoubtedly broad and unspecific, the use of the violation of public order as a tool for declaring the nullity of arbitral awards by the ordinary courts has produced an “overflow” effect that has required, in the words of the Constitutional Court, “a restrictive interpretation of it, on pain of violating the autonomy of the will of the parties and their waiver of judicial protection”.

      This is what the Court has proclaimed in the very important judgement of 15 February 2021, which is the reason for this legal note.

      In recent years, the High Court of Justice of Madrid has resorted to the argument of “public order” in an extensive and “overwhelmed” manner to annul arbitral awards and “supplant the arbitral tribunal in its function of applying the law”, becoming “a second instance reviewing the facts and rights applied in the arbitral award, a control mechanism for the correct application of jurisprudence”.

      And this expansive and “overwhelmed” interpretation of public order as a tool for annulling arbitral awards by the High Court of Justice of Madrid had become a serious problem for the arbitral institution and for the confidence of the contracting parties when including arbitration agreements in their contracts.

      The principle that the arbitral award was the final and definitive solution to the dispute it was intended to resolve, except for procedural breaches or breaches of public order limited to those cases in which the arbitral award was arbitrary, illogical, absurd or irrational, was called into question and was a clear deterrent to contracting parties deciding to resolve their discrepancies through arbitration.

      Well then, the Constitutional Court, in a categorical and explicit manner, repeating what it had already stated in its judgement of June last year, confirms that the need for the arbitral award not to contravene public order cannot result in the judicial body replacing the arbitrator in his function of applying the law, nor can it become a second instance reviewing the facts and legal grounds applied in the arbitral award, nor a mechanism for controlling the correct application of case law.

      The principle of party autonomy prevails; and this means that when there is submission to arbitration, the parties have agreed that it should be through this channel that disputes between them are to be resolved, by means of the arbitrator’s decision, which can only be annulled through the strict channels that the Arbitration Act regulates; we insist, for procedural reasons or for violating public order in the restricted interpretation explained in the judgement we are commenting on; but in no case, by way of a second instance where the facts and legal grounds applied are re-evaluated once again.

      In short, Spanish arbitration is to be congratulated, and will be able to recover the momentum that caused it to lose, in part, the extensive interpretation of public order defended by some High Courts of Justice. From now on, the Courts will not be able to ignore the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, which is a breath of fresh air for Spanish arbitration.

      Zusammenfassung

      Bei der Beendigung von Handelsvertreter- und Vertriebsverträgen ist der Hauptkonfliktpunkt die Entschädigung für den Goodwill (Kundenstamm). Das spanische Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag sieht – ebenso wie die Richtlinie über Handelsvertreter – vor, dass der Handelsvertreter bei Beendigung des Vertrags unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen Anspruch auf einen Ausgleich hat. In Spanien kann dieser Ausgleich analog (wenn auch mit Einschränkungen und Abweichungen ) auch bei Vertriebsverträgen geltend gemacht werden.

      Für den Zuspruch eines  Kundenausgleichs ist es erforderlich, dass der Handelsvertreter (oder der Vertriebshändler: siehe diesen Beitrag, um mehr zu erfahren) neue Kunden gewonnen oder die Geschäfte mit bereits bestehenden Kunden erheblich ausgeweitet hat, sodass seine Tätigkeit dem Auftraggeber weiterhin erhebliche Vorteile bringen kann. Die Höhe der hierfür zu leistenden Ausgleichszahlung muss angemessen sein. All dies ist Voraussetzung für die Anerkennung des Ausgleichsanspruchs und dessen Höhe.

      Diese Begriffe (neue Kunden, erhebliche Ausweitung der Geschäfte mit bestehenden Kunden, wesentliche Vorteile, Angemessenheit der Ausgleichszahlung ) sind im Vorfeld schwer zu definieren, so dass es sich empfiehlt, die Klagen vor Gericht von Fall zu Fall auf Gutachten zu stützen, die von einem Anwalt überwacht werden.

      Zumindest in Spanien besteht die Tendenz, direkt den Höchstbetrag zu fordern, den die dort geltende Norm vorsieht (ein Jahresgehalt, das als Durchschnitt der letzten fünf Jahre berechnet wird), ohne eine weitere Analyse vorzunehmen. Bei einem derart pauschalen Vorgehen  besteht jedoch die Gefahr, dass ein Richter den Antrag als unbegründet zurückweist.

      Aus diesem Grund und aufgrund unserer Erfahrung halte ich es für angebracht, Hinweise zu geben, wie der Anspruch auf  Entschädigung und deren Höhe sich im Einzelfall begründen lässt.

      Der Vertreter/Händler, der Sachverständige und der Anwalt sollten Folgendes berücksichtigen:

      Prüfen Sie, wie hoch der Beitrag des Vertreters  war

      Entscheidend ist, ob  es bereits vor Vertragsbeginn Kunden gab und welches Umsatzvolumen mit ihnen erzielt wurde. Für die Anerkennung dieses Ausgleichs ist es entscheidend  ob der Vertreter die Zahl der Kunden erhöht hat oder mit bereits bestehenden Kunden arbeitet.

      Analyse des fortlaufenden Kundenwerts für den Auftraggeber

      Ihre Wiederkehr, ihre Loyalität (zum Auftraggeber und nicht zum Vermittler), die Abwanderungsrate (wie viele von ihnen werden nach  Vertragsabschluss beim Auftraggeber oder beim Vermittler bleiben) – nach all diesen Kriterien bemisst sich der Wert des durch den Vermittler gewonnenen Kundenstamms. In der Tat wird es schwierig sein, von einem „Kundenstamm“ zu sprechen, wenn es sich nur um sporadische, gelegentliche, nicht wiederkehrende oder nur wenige Kunden handelt, oder um Kunden, die in Zukunft dem Handelsvertreter und nicht dem Auftraggeber treu bleiben werden.

      Wie verhält sich der Vermittler bei Vertragsende?

      Die entscheidende Frage, die sich hier stellt: Kann er mit dem Auftraggeber konkurrieren oder gibt es Einschränkungen im Vertrag? Wenn der Handelsvertreter weiterhin dieselben Kunden betreuen kann, aber für einen anderen Auftraggeber, könnte die Entschädigung sehr wohl diskutiert werden.

      Ist die Vergütung angemessen?

      Untersuchen Sie hierfür, wie der Vertreter in der Vergangenheit gehandelt hat: Ob er seinen Verpflichtungen nachgekommen ist, wie er beiEinführung der Produkte oder der Markterschließung vorgegangen ist, wie sich diese Produkte oder Dienstleistungen in Zukunft entwickeln könnten usw.

      Wird der Vermittler seine Provisionen verlieren?

      Hier ist zu prüfen, ob der Vermittler  einer Ausschließlichkeitsbindung unterlag , ob es ihm leichter oder schwerer fiel im Anschluss, einen neuen Vertrag zu bekommen (z. B. aufgrund seines Alters, der Wirtschaftskrise, der Art der Produkte usw.) oder ob er eine neue Einnahmequelle hatte, wie sich die Umsätze in den letzten Jahren entwickelt haben (die für eine Entschädigung in Frage kommen) usw.

      Welches ist der gesetzliche Höchstwert, der nicht überschritten werden darf?

      Der Jahresdurchschnitt der während der Vertragslaufzeit (oder während eines Zeitraums von 5 Jahre, wenn der Vertrag länger dauerte) erhaltenen Beträge. Dazu gehören nicht nur die Provisionen, sondern auch etwaige Festbeträge, Boni, Preise usw. oder Margen im Falle von Vertriebshändlern.

      Und schließlich ist es zweckmäßig, alle analysierten Dokumente in den Bericht des Sachverständigen aufzunehmen

      Wenn dies nicht geschieht und sie nur erwähnt werden, könnte dies dazu führen, dass sie von einem Richter nicht berücksichtigt werden.

      Lesen Sie den praktischen Leitfaden für internationale Agenturvereinbarungen

      Weitere Informationen über die wichtigsten Merkmale eines Geschäftsbesorgungsvertrags in Spanien finden Sie in unserem Leitfaden.

      International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

      The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

      What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

      The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

      The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

      Verification of the identity of the company

      Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

      Request of financial  information

      What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

      Use the right contract

      What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

      Write down your agreements

      Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

      Follow your contract

      If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

      Document all transactions

      From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

      Has the debtor risen objections?

      Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

      Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

      In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

      Seek guarantees for your credits

      This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

      Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

      Check out our webinar on debt collection

      On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

      You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

      Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

      If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

      The Spanish government has recently approved two new rules on equal pay and equality plans which will come into force in January and April 2021 and affect all companies.

      1. Royal Decree 901/2020, of October 13, which regulates the equality plans and their registration

      An „equality plan“ is understood to be that ordered set of measures adopted after carrying out a situation diagnosis, aimed at achieving equal treatment and opportunities between women and men in the company, and eliminating discrimination based on sex.

      All companies that have 50 or more workers are obliged to draw up and apply an equality plan, its implementation being voluntary for other companies. In any case, equality plans, including previous diagnoses, must be subject to negotiation with the legal representation of the workers, in accordance with the procedure legally established for that purpose.

      Regarding the content of the plans, they must include, among others, definition of quantitative and qualitative objectives, description of the specific measures to be adopted, identification of means and resources, calendar of actions, monitoring and evaluation systems, etc. In addition, they must be subject to mandatory registration in a public registry.

      This new Royal Decree will enter into force on January 14, 2021.

      2. Royal Decree 902/2020, of October 13, of equal pay between women and men

      The purpose of this new Royal Decree is to implement specific measures that make it possible to enforce the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination between women and men in matters of remuneration.

      For this, the companies and collective agreements must integrate and apply the so-called „principle of remuneration transparency„, which applied to the different aspects that determine the remuneration of workers, allows obtaining sufficient and significant information on the value attributed to such remuneration.

      For the application of the aforementioned principle, the Royal Decree provides, fundamentally, two instruments:

      • remuneration registry: All companies must have an accessible remuneration registry for the legal representation of workers. It must include the average values ​​of salaries, salary supplements and extra-salary perceptions of the entire workforce (including managers and senior positions) disaggregated by sex.
      • remuneration audit: Those companies that draw up an equality plan must include a remuneration audit in it. Its purpose is to check if the company’s remuneration system complies with the effective application of the principle of equality, defining the needs to avoid, correct and prevent obstacles and difficulties that may exist.

      The measures contained in this new standard will come into effect on April 14, 2021.

      Ignacio Alonso

      Rechtsgebiete

      • Agentur
      • Unternehmen
      • Vertrieb
      • Franchising
      Kontakt Ignacio

      Schreiben Sie an Ignacio





        Legalmondos Datenschutzbestimmungen lesen.
        This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

        International debt recovery: risk prevention and best practices

        7. Dezember 2020

        • Spanien
        • Vertrieb
        • Rechtsstreitigkeiten

        What a director of a company in Spain must do to resign? Is it enough to send a communication to the company stating his resignation? Or does he have to call a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute? Or does he even have to do something else?

        A recent Supreme Court ruling dated July 12, 2022 (STS 561/2022) has resolved an interesting case related to the resignation of a sole director of an LLC, confirming that resigning is not as simple as it may seem.

        The SC, indeed, established that a sole director, to resign, must not only prove that he validly called a Shareholders‘ Meeting for the appointment of a substitute, but he must also prove that he did everything necessary during the interim period (i.e.: the time between the resignation and the holding of the Meeting) to meet the needs of management and representation of the company and to avoid damages. Even, and this is the case discussed in the STS, requiring the presence of a notary at the Meeting, if so required by shareholders representing at least 5% of the share capital.

        The case recently ruled by the SC involved a company with two shareholders: the majority partner with 75% of the capital, and the minority partner (and sole administrator) with 25%. The sole administrator resigned and called a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute. The majority shareholder required the presence of a Notary at the Meeting; but the resigning director refused, stating that – following his resignation – he had no obligation regarding the Meeting.

        On the day of the Meeting, the majority shareholder was present, but neither the resigning administrator nor the Notary were, therefore the Shareholder’s Meeting was not held.

        The administrator filed the deed of resignation with the Commercial Registry and the majority shareholder – at the same time – filed a document denouncing that the resigning administrator had not requested the presence of a Notary at the Meeting, despite having been requested to do so.

        Thereafter, several resolutions with very different contents were issued. The Commercial Registrar suspended the registration of the resignation, but the „Dirección General del Notariado y de los Registros“ (General Directorate of Notaries and Registries) decided that the resignation should be registered. The Commercial Court of Barcelona confirmed this last decision, and so did the Provincial Court. But the Supreme Court finally gave reason to the Mercantile Registrar.

        The rulings in favor of the registration of the resignation argued, firstly, that the outgoing administrator exhausted his responsibilities by convening the Shareholder’s Meeting; and secondly, that the Registrar must examine only if a document may be entered in the register, without considering the „extra-registry reality“, such as the document presented by the majority shareholder complaining about the administrator’s actions.

        The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the absence of a Notary, validly requested by the majority shareholder, rendered ineffective all the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. Based on this, the Supreme Court considered it „logical“ that in such a case the administrator should not only call the Shareholder’s Meeting but also require the presence of a Notary, in order to grant the validity of the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. With respect to the second controversial issue, the Supreme Court ruled that the Registrar, although exceptionally, can take into account certain circumstances or facts of which he has „registry evidence“, even if they do not appear by virtue of documents presented for their inscription, as long as they are related to the „inscribable“ document.

        In short, this interesting case shows that resigning as an administrator is not an easy activity. In general, although there is no specific provision on the subject in the Spanish system, the resigning administrator must not only call a Shareholder’s Meeting, but also remain administrator on an interim basis and attend to his obligations until the Shareholder’s Meeting is held; then, if the Shareholder’s Meeting is not held due to the non-attendance of the shareholders or if the shareholders do not appoint a substitute administrator, nothing more is required from the resigning administrator.

        Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Obersten Gerichtshofs Spaniens kann ein Handelsvertreter Anspruch auf Ausgleichszahlungen für die Kundschaft haben, wenn Artikel 28 des Handelsvertretergesetzes analog angewendet wird (die „inspirierende Idee„). Dieser Ausgleich wird für den Handelsvertreter auf der Grundlage der in den letzten fünf Jahren erhaltenen Vergütungen berechnet.

        In einem Vertriebsvertrag gibt es jedoch keine „Vergütungen“, wie sie der Handelsvertreter erhält (Provisionen, Festbeträge oder andere), sondern „Handelsspannen“ (Differenzen zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis). Es stellt sich also die Frage, welche Größenordnung für die Kundenvergütung in einem Vertriebsvertrag in Betracht zu ziehen ist: Entweder die „Bruttomarge“ (die bereits erwähnte Differenz zwischen dem Einkaufs- und dem Wiederverkaufspreis) oder die „Nettomarge“ (dieselbe Differenz, aber abzüglich anderer Ausgaben und Steuern, die dem Vertriebshändler entstanden sind).

        Die bisherige Schlussfolgerung schien darin zu bestehen, die Vergütung des Vertriebshändlers aus seinen „Bruttomargen“ zu berechnen, da dies eine Größe ist, die eher mit der „Vergütung“ des Handelsvertreters vergleichbar ist: Andere Ausgaben und Steuern des Vertriebshändlers konnten nicht in der gleichen Weise abgezogen werden wie bei einem Handelsvertretervertrag, bei dem weder Ausgaben noch Steuern abgezogen wurden.

        Der Oberste Gerichtshof (17. November 1999) hatte darauf hingewiesen, dass es für die Berechnung der Entschädigung für die Kunden „angemessener ist, sie als Bruttobeitrag zu betrachten, da der Vertreter damit alle Auslagen seiner kommerziellen Organisation decken muss„. Außerdem stellen die „erzielten Einkünfte“ „keine Vergütung im gleichen Sinne dar“ (21. Oktober 2008), da solche „Leistungen“ „zum internen Bereich der eigenen Organisation des Vertreters gehören“ (12. März 2012).

        Kürzlich wurde jedoch in einem Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 1. März 2017 (bestätigt durch ein weiteres Urteil vom 19. Mai 2017) die Auffassung vertreten, dass die Bestimmung der Höhe der Kundenentschädigung in einem Vertriebsvertrag nicht auf der Grundlage der vom Vertriebshändler erzielten „Bruttomargen“ erfolgen kann, sondern auf der Grundlage der „Nettomarge“. Um zu dieser Schlussfolgerung zu gelangen, verweist das Gericht auf ein Urteil desselben Gerichts aus dem Jahr 2016 sowie auf weitere Urteile aus den Jahren 2010 und 2007.

        Bedeutet dies eine Änderung der Rechtsprechung? Meiner Meinung nach ist diese Lesart des Obersten Gerichtshofs nicht richtig. Lassen Sie uns sehen, warum.

        Im Urteil vom März 2017 wird der Disjunktiv zwischen Brutto- und Nettomarge im zweiten Rechtsgrund erwähnt und bezieht sich auf das Urteil von 2016.

        In diesem Urteil aus dem Jahr 2016 heißt es, dass in einem anderen Urteil aus dem Jahr 2010 zwar nicht entschieden wurde, ob die Berechnung auf der Grundlage der Brutto- oder der Nettomarge erfolgen muss, in einem früheren Urteil aus dem Jahr 2007 jedoch eingeräumt wurde, dass der vom Händler erzielte Nettogewinn (Gewinn nach Abzug von Kosten und Steuern) und nicht die Marge, d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis, mit der Vergütung des Vertreters vergleichbar ist.

        Meines Erachtens bezieht sich der Oberste Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil vom März 2017 in letzter Instanz auf das Urteil 296/2007, was dort nicht gesagt wurde. Im Jahr 2007 bezifferte der Oberste Gerichtshof nicht die Entschädigung der Kundschaft, sondern den Schadenersatz. Genauer gesagt, und nach der Feststellung, dass „die Entschädigung der Kunden in der Klage klar und eindeutig gefordert werden muss„, kam der Gerichtshof zu dem Schluss, dass die Kammer „entscheiden muss, was den Bedingungen entspricht, unter denen die Debatte … in der ursprünglichen Klage geführt wurde. Und da … das Interesse an einer Entschädigung hauptsächlich auf der Dauer der Beziehung beruhte … besteht die Lösung, die der Rechtsprechung dieses Gerichtshofs besser entspricht, darin, als Entschädigung einen Betrag festzusetzen, der dem Nettonutzen entspricht, der durch den Vertrieb der Produkte … in dem Jahr unmittelbar vor der Beendigung des Vertrags erzielt wurde“. In diesem Urteil von 2007 entschied der Gerichtshof also nicht über die Entschädigung der Kunden, sondern über den Schadenersatz.

        Auf diese Weise wurde die Schlussfolgerung aus dem Jahr 2007, den Schadensersatz auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen zu berechnen, ohne weitere Analyse auf das Jahr 2016 übertragen, allerdings für die Berechnung der Kundenentschädigung. Dieses Kriterium wird nun in den Urteilen des Jahres 2017 fast automatisch wieder aufgegriffen.

        Meines Erachtens sollte jedoch trotz der Änderung der Rechtsprechung die These vorherrschen, dass bei der analogen Anwendung des Kundenausgleichs in Vertriebsverträgen die Größe, die der „Vergütung“ des Vertreters entspricht, die „Bruttomarge“ ist, die der Vertriebshändler erzielt, und nicht seine „Nettomarge“: Es macht nicht viel Sinn, dass, wenn die Analogie angewandt wird, um den Kundenausgleich an einen Vertriebshändler anzuerkennen, dieser von seinen Bruttomargenbeträgen abgezogen wird, um seine Marge oder seinen Nettogewinn zu erreichen. Der Handelsvertreter hat auch seine Ausgaben und zahlt auch seine Steuern ausgehend von seinen „Vergütungen“, und nichts in der Richtlinie 86/653/EWG oder im Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag erlaubt es, solche Beträge abzuziehen, um seine Kundenvergütung zu berechnen. Meiner Meinung nach sollten daher die Vertriebshändler gleichgestellt werden: Die Größen, die verglichen werden könnten, sollten die (Brutto-)Vergütungen des Vertreters mit den (Brutto-)Margen des Vertriebshändlers sein (d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis).

        Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die Urteile vom 1. März und 19. Mai 2017 auf einem meines Erachtens früheren Irrtum beharren und zusätzliche Verwirrung in einer Frage stiften, die bereits erörtert wurde: Die analoge Anwendung der Kundenentschädigung auf die Vertriebsverträge und die Berechnungsmethode.

        Aktualisierungsmitteilung (27. Januar 2020)

        In einem kürzlich ergangenen Beschluss („Auto“) des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 20. November 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 über die Unzulässigkeit eines Rechtsmittels) hatte der Gerichtshof Gelegenheit, auf diese Frage zurückzukommen und die Kriterien der letzten Rechtsprechung zu bestätigen: Die  in den Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigende Größe für die Anwendung der Analogie und die Berechnung der Goodwill-Entschädigung sind die „Nettomargen“ .

        In diesem Verfahren legte ein Vertriebsunternehmen Berufung gegen die Entscheidung des Landgerichts Barcelona ein, das den Ausgleich auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen und nicht der Bruttomargen anerkannte. Der Händler beantragte beim Obersten Gerichtshof die Aufhebung dieses Urteils mit der Begründung, dass es nach der neuesten Rechtsprechung ergangen sei, die nach Ansicht des Rechtsmittelführers fehlerhaft sei.

        Der Oberste Gerichtshof scheint jedoch zu bestätigen, dass im Gegensatz zu der These, die ich oben in diesem Beitrag vertreten habe, „kein angeblicher Fehler in der jüngsten Rechtsprechung bei der analogen Auslegung von Art. 28.3 des Gesetzes über den Handelsvertreter für den Vertriebsvertrag und somit auch nicht die Notwendigkeit besteht, die jüngste Rechtsprechung zu diesem Thema zu überprüfen“. Wenn der Oberste Gerichtshof seine jüngste Rechtsprechung nicht überprüft und das Urteil, in dem die Nettomargen angewandt wurden, für akzeptabel hält, müssen wir folglich davon ausgehen, dass die Größenordnung, die bei der Entschädigung der Kundschaft in Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigen ist, die Nettomargen und nicht die Bruttomargen sind.

        Mit dieser Entscheidung scheint  das Gericht also die Diskussion zu beenden, die jedoch meiner Meinung nach weiterhin zu zahlreichen Diskussionen führen wird.

        Artists (actors, singers) and sportsmen, non-residents in Spanish territory, who occasionally carry out their artistic or sporting activities in Spain, are usually unaware of their tax obligations before the Spanish Tax Authorities.

        In this respect, we would like to point out that, in the last year, the inspection activity of the Spanish Tax Administration has increased considerably in relation to these taxpayers. This is a consequence of the fact that the Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan of the State Agency issued by the Spanish Tax Administration (AEAT) expressly included the intensification of the control of the income obtained by non-resident artists and sportsmen who act or develop an activity in Spain within the year 2020.

        Spanish legislation, which regulates the Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR), establishes literally that: it is considered income obtained in Spanish territory, among others, that which derives, directly or indirectly, from the personal performance in Spanish territory of artists and sportsmen, and that which derives from any other activity related to such performance, even if it is received by a person or entity other than the artist or sportsman.

        This means that the artist or sportsman who performs an activity in Spain for which he or she obtains income, is subject to tax obligations and to the payment of taxes in Spain and must declare not only the income directly related to his or her performance but also other income linked to his or her professional performance, such as sponsorships, image rights, etc…

        The above is understood regardless of whether the actual recipient of the income derived from the athlete’s or artist’s performance is the artist or athlete himself or herself, a company in which he or she has any interest, or a third individual or legal entity with no apparent connection to the athlete or artist.

        Therefore, even if the company that pays such income is a non-resident in Spanish territory and the payment takes place physically outside such territory, any income obtained in Spain will be considered subject to tax (19% for EU residents and 24% for non-EU residents) when it is obtained on account of the artistic or sporting activity carried out in the Spanish territory.

        Most of the double taxation international treaties that Spain has signed with other countries allow the country in which the activity of the artist or athlete takes place to tax the income generated from such activity. All these agreements also establish mechanisms to avoid double taxation, but this possibility is considerably complicated when, as in many cases, the artist or sportsman receives his income through a company incorporated in his country of residence or in a third country instead of receiving it directly as an individual.

        Often the contracts signed by artists and sportsmen are signed by companies related to them -usually domiciled in their country of residence-, this situation is giving rise to serious difficulties for them to deduct in their country of residence (and within the scope of Corporate Income Tax) the tax paid in Spain as an individual.

        We therefore want to highlight (i) the existence of important tax obligations that affects artists and sportsmen who are not resident in Spanish territory for the activities they carry out in Spain and, furthermore, (ii) the need for them to receive adequate prior advice on the tax consequences of their activity and, consequently, on the best vehicle to formalize their contracting.

        Summary

        One of the issues when setting up a (subsidiary) company in Spain which creates more practical difficulties is the question of powers of attorney: What is a power of attorney, are they necessary and how do they work? In Spain this question is of practical relevance and its operation does not always coincide with what happens in other countries. In this commentary, we will give you some ideas on how to act with these powers of attorney when setting up a company.

        What is a power of attorney? A power of attorney allows a person (attorney-in-fact or representative) to act on behalf of a company. The attorney-in-fact may, for example, sign a contract on behalf of a company if that company has given him or her the power (authority) to do so. For example, borrowing money from a bank.

        To do this the company will have two types of representatives: an „organic representative“ (the directors) and „voluntary representatives“ (attorneys-in-fact).

        First, a company must have at least one director

        The director(s) is the „organic representative“. In other words, he/she is an organ (management body) of the company, represents it and can contract on its behalf.

        This „organ“ may be a single person (a single director), it may be several persons acting individually or jointly, or it may be a board of directors („collegial body“). The power of representation resides in the „organ“. It is the body that represents the company and not necessarily its members.

        The first task, therefore, is to decide on the structure of the body, and this is taken when the company is incorporated, although it can be changed later. In this way, the sole director will have all the powers to represent the company, the individual directors will also have them if they are „joint and several” or will have to act jointly if they are „joint“ directors, and the board will also have them, but as a body (not each director individually).

        This last remark (the powers are held by the body and not necessarily by its members) is important when the company is managed by a board of directors. The fact that there is a board of directors does not imply that each member has the powers to represent the company, but that they are held by the body as a whole. The board may, however, delegate them. When the board delegates the powers to one of its directors (it is possible, but not obligatory to appoint one), the latter becomes a „managing director“ (Consejero Delegado). This director may then represent the company in all matters delegated to him/her.

        Secondly, in addition to the directors, the company may have (not compulsory) other „proxies“ (empowered person)

        These are the „voluntary representatives“, i.e. appointed „at the will“ of the company.

        A proxy is someone to whom the company gives powers to represent it. Powers to do certain things.

        As we said at the beginning, in Spain, acting by proxy is quite strict, so that a company cannot normally be represented by anyone who does not have the power to do so. For example, if the company authorises (empowers) a person only to sign banking contracts, he/she will not be able to sign contracts with employees.

        The powers granted to a person must therefore be express. If a person is authorised to open a bank account, he/she is not supposed to be able to borrow money. And in this way, the powers serve as a framework for action: what the attorney-in-fact can do and what the limits are. And sometimes these limits come from the power itself (opening a bank account does not authorise borrowing) or can be quantitative (borrowing, but only up to 100,000 euros), or temporary (borrowing, but until 31 December 2025) or even requiring more than one person to act (borrowing, but co-signing with person „Z“). And, of course, a combination of all of them: attorney-in-fact „X“ can take out loans by signing with attorney-in-fact „W“ up to 100,000 euros, and with attorney-in-fact „Z“ up to 1,000,000 euros.

        When setting up a company in Spain, it is therefore highly advisable to think about how the powers are to be granted, especially if the administrative body does not reside in our country. As we have seen from experience, it is not uncommon to set up a company by appointing an administrator resident abroad without appointing a proxy in Spain. This is legally valid, but, in a way, it hinders the functioning of the company: the only person to sign contracts and represent the company resides abroad, which, from a practical point of view, will be a major disadvantage.

        The procedure for empowering a person is simple. All it takes is a decision of the administrative body, formalisation before a notary and registration in the Commercial Register. In this way, anyone can verify that the person appointed can represent the company in that particular act. This does require a person of trust to be found (an employee, a resident partner, a third party), but the risk can be modulated by the limitation possibilities described above.

        In conclusion

        When setting up a company in Spain, if the administrator will not be resident in Spain, consider how to organise the powers of attorney, whom to empower and how to limit, if necessary, their powers.

        And the powers of attorney that you will need most and most urgently are:

        • (a) those that will allow you to contract with banks (opening and managing bank accounts),
        • (b) those relating to employees (hiring, registration with social security, payment of salaries),
        • (c) those for supply contracts (electricity, water, telephone) and other general contracts (rental, vehicles, distribution contracts); and
        • (d) managing the company’s electronic signature (relations with public administrations, tax payments).

        Failure to take this decision in a timely manner could delay or hinder the activity being started.

        And if in doubt, it is best to consult a local lawyer.

        Arbitration is a procedure for resolving disputes between parties that is very successful in the Anglo-Saxon legal system. But much less in our country.

        Arbitration has advantages and disadvantages; it is more expensive than the Courts, but it is much quicker; and speed is essential for justice to be such.

        Typically, an arbitration lasts six months plus a couple of months for the appointment of the arbitrator; in total, a dispute, however important and difficult it may be, can be definitively resolved in eight months.

        To compare with the Courts, in Spain today it takes on average eighteen months to obtain a judgement at first instance and another eighteen months for an appeal; without considering the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

        The cornerstone on which arbitration rests is that the arbitral award is final and definitive and cannot be reviewed or appealed; this statement has certain exceptions, mainly of a formal or procedural nature: basically, the legality of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the matter and the procedural regularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. These defects can be attacked by means of an action for annulment, which is heard by the ordinary courts.

        But in addition to the possible “formal” defects, the action for annulment can be based on the allegation of a breach of “public order”, which the Constitutional Court has defined and outlined as “those public and private, political, moral and economic legal principles which are absolutely obligatory for the preservation of society in a given people and at a given time”.

        As this definition of “public order” is undoubtedly broad and unspecific, the use of the violation of public order as a tool for declaring the nullity of arbitral awards by the ordinary courts has produced an “overflow” effect that has required, in the words of the Constitutional Court, “a restrictive interpretation of it, on pain of violating the autonomy of the will of the parties and their waiver of judicial protection”.

        This is what the Court has proclaimed in the very important judgement of 15 February 2021, which is the reason for this legal note.

        In recent years, the High Court of Justice of Madrid has resorted to the argument of “public order” in an extensive and “overwhelmed” manner to annul arbitral awards and “supplant the arbitral tribunal in its function of applying the law”, becoming “a second instance reviewing the facts and rights applied in the arbitral award, a control mechanism for the correct application of jurisprudence”.

        And this expansive and “overwhelmed” interpretation of public order as a tool for annulling arbitral awards by the High Court of Justice of Madrid had become a serious problem for the arbitral institution and for the confidence of the contracting parties when including arbitration agreements in their contracts.

        The principle that the arbitral award was the final and definitive solution to the dispute it was intended to resolve, except for procedural breaches or breaches of public order limited to those cases in which the arbitral award was arbitrary, illogical, absurd or irrational, was called into question and was a clear deterrent to contracting parties deciding to resolve their discrepancies through arbitration.

        Well then, the Constitutional Court, in a categorical and explicit manner, repeating what it had already stated in its judgement of June last year, confirms that the need for the arbitral award not to contravene public order cannot result in the judicial body replacing the arbitrator in his function of applying the law, nor can it become a second instance reviewing the facts and legal grounds applied in the arbitral award, nor a mechanism for controlling the correct application of case law.

        The principle of party autonomy prevails; and this means that when there is submission to arbitration, the parties have agreed that it should be through this channel that disputes between them are to be resolved, by means of the arbitrator’s decision, which can only be annulled through the strict channels that the Arbitration Act regulates; we insist, for procedural reasons or for violating public order in the restricted interpretation explained in the judgement we are commenting on; but in no case, by way of a second instance where the facts and legal grounds applied are re-evaluated once again.

        In short, Spanish arbitration is to be congratulated, and will be able to recover the momentum that caused it to lose, in part, the extensive interpretation of public order defended by some High Courts of Justice. From now on, the Courts will not be able to ignore the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, which is a breath of fresh air for Spanish arbitration.

        Zusammenfassung

        Bei der Beendigung von Handelsvertreter- und Vertriebsverträgen ist der Hauptkonfliktpunkt die Entschädigung für den Goodwill (Kundenstamm). Das spanische Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag sieht – ebenso wie die Richtlinie über Handelsvertreter – vor, dass der Handelsvertreter bei Beendigung des Vertrags unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen Anspruch auf einen Ausgleich hat. In Spanien kann dieser Ausgleich analog (wenn auch mit Einschränkungen und Abweichungen ) auch bei Vertriebsverträgen geltend gemacht werden.

        Für den Zuspruch eines  Kundenausgleichs ist es erforderlich, dass der Handelsvertreter (oder der Vertriebshändler: siehe diesen Beitrag, um mehr zu erfahren) neue Kunden gewonnen oder die Geschäfte mit bereits bestehenden Kunden erheblich ausgeweitet hat, sodass seine Tätigkeit dem Auftraggeber weiterhin erhebliche Vorteile bringen kann. Die Höhe der hierfür zu leistenden Ausgleichszahlung muss angemessen sein. All dies ist Voraussetzung für die Anerkennung des Ausgleichsanspruchs und dessen Höhe.

        Diese Begriffe (neue Kunden, erhebliche Ausweitung der Geschäfte mit bestehenden Kunden, wesentliche Vorteile, Angemessenheit der Ausgleichszahlung ) sind im Vorfeld schwer zu definieren, so dass es sich empfiehlt, die Klagen vor Gericht von Fall zu Fall auf Gutachten zu stützen, die von einem Anwalt überwacht werden.

        Zumindest in Spanien besteht die Tendenz, direkt den Höchstbetrag zu fordern, den die dort geltende Norm vorsieht (ein Jahresgehalt, das als Durchschnitt der letzten fünf Jahre berechnet wird), ohne eine weitere Analyse vorzunehmen. Bei einem derart pauschalen Vorgehen  besteht jedoch die Gefahr, dass ein Richter den Antrag als unbegründet zurückweist.

        Aus diesem Grund und aufgrund unserer Erfahrung halte ich es für angebracht, Hinweise zu geben, wie der Anspruch auf  Entschädigung und deren Höhe sich im Einzelfall begründen lässt.

        Der Vertreter/Händler, der Sachverständige und der Anwalt sollten Folgendes berücksichtigen:

        Prüfen Sie, wie hoch der Beitrag des Vertreters  war

        Entscheidend ist, ob  es bereits vor Vertragsbeginn Kunden gab und welches Umsatzvolumen mit ihnen erzielt wurde. Für die Anerkennung dieses Ausgleichs ist es entscheidend  ob der Vertreter die Zahl der Kunden erhöht hat oder mit bereits bestehenden Kunden arbeitet.

        Analyse des fortlaufenden Kundenwerts für den Auftraggeber

        Ihre Wiederkehr, ihre Loyalität (zum Auftraggeber und nicht zum Vermittler), die Abwanderungsrate (wie viele von ihnen werden nach  Vertragsabschluss beim Auftraggeber oder beim Vermittler bleiben) – nach all diesen Kriterien bemisst sich der Wert des durch den Vermittler gewonnenen Kundenstamms. In der Tat wird es schwierig sein, von einem „Kundenstamm“ zu sprechen, wenn es sich nur um sporadische, gelegentliche, nicht wiederkehrende oder nur wenige Kunden handelt, oder um Kunden, die in Zukunft dem Handelsvertreter und nicht dem Auftraggeber treu bleiben werden.

        Wie verhält sich der Vermittler bei Vertragsende?

        Die entscheidende Frage, die sich hier stellt: Kann er mit dem Auftraggeber konkurrieren oder gibt es Einschränkungen im Vertrag? Wenn der Handelsvertreter weiterhin dieselben Kunden betreuen kann, aber für einen anderen Auftraggeber, könnte die Entschädigung sehr wohl diskutiert werden.

        Ist die Vergütung angemessen?

        Untersuchen Sie hierfür, wie der Vertreter in der Vergangenheit gehandelt hat: Ob er seinen Verpflichtungen nachgekommen ist, wie er beiEinführung der Produkte oder der Markterschließung vorgegangen ist, wie sich diese Produkte oder Dienstleistungen in Zukunft entwickeln könnten usw.

        Wird der Vermittler seine Provisionen verlieren?

        Hier ist zu prüfen, ob der Vermittler  einer Ausschließlichkeitsbindung unterlag , ob es ihm leichter oder schwerer fiel im Anschluss, einen neuen Vertrag zu bekommen (z. B. aufgrund seines Alters, der Wirtschaftskrise, der Art der Produkte usw.) oder ob er eine neue Einnahmequelle hatte, wie sich die Umsätze in den letzten Jahren entwickelt haben (die für eine Entschädigung in Frage kommen) usw.

        Welches ist der gesetzliche Höchstwert, der nicht überschritten werden darf?

        Der Jahresdurchschnitt der während der Vertragslaufzeit (oder während eines Zeitraums von 5 Jahre, wenn der Vertrag länger dauerte) erhaltenen Beträge. Dazu gehören nicht nur die Provisionen, sondern auch etwaige Festbeträge, Boni, Preise usw. oder Margen im Falle von Vertriebshändlern.

        Und schließlich ist es zweckmäßig, alle analysierten Dokumente in den Bericht des Sachverständigen aufzunehmen

        Wenn dies nicht geschieht und sie nur erwähnt werden, könnte dies dazu führen, dass sie von einem Richter nicht berücksichtigt werden.

        Lesen Sie den praktischen Leitfaden für internationale Agenturvereinbarungen

        Weitere Informationen über die wichtigsten Merkmale eines Geschäftsbesorgungsvertrags in Spanien finden Sie in unserem Leitfaden.

        International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

        The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

        What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

        The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

        The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

        Verification of the identity of the company

        Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

        Request of financial  information

        What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

        Use the right contract

        What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

        Write down your agreements

        Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

        Follow your contract

        If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

        Document all transactions

        From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

        Has the debtor risen objections?

        Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

        Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

        In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

        Seek guarantees for your credits

        This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

        Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

        Check out our webinar on debt collection

        On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

        You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

        Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

        If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

        The Spanish government has recently approved two new rules on equal pay and equality plans which will come into force in January and April 2021 and affect all companies.

        1. Royal Decree 901/2020, of October 13, which regulates the equality plans and their registration

        An „equality plan“ is understood to be that ordered set of measures adopted after carrying out a situation diagnosis, aimed at achieving equal treatment and opportunities between women and men in the company, and eliminating discrimination based on sex.

        All companies that have 50 or more workers are obliged to draw up and apply an equality plan, its implementation being voluntary for other companies. In any case, equality plans, including previous diagnoses, must be subject to negotiation with the legal representation of the workers, in accordance with the procedure legally established for that purpose.

        Regarding the content of the plans, they must include, among others, definition of quantitative and qualitative objectives, description of the specific measures to be adopted, identification of means and resources, calendar of actions, monitoring and evaluation systems, etc. In addition, they must be subject to mandatory registration in a public registry.

        This new Royal Decree will enter into force on January 14, 2021.

        2. Royal Decree 902/2020, of October 13, of equal pay between women and men

        The purpose of this new Royal Decree is to implement specific measures that make it possible to enforce the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination between women and men in matters of remuneration.

        For this, the companies and collective agreements must integrate and apply the so-called „principle of remuneration transparency„, which applied to the different aspects that determine the remuneration of workers, allows obtaining sufficient and significant information on the value attributed to such remuneration.

        For the application of the aforementioned principle, the Royal Decree provides, fundamentally, two instruments:

        • remuneration registry: All companies must have an accessible remuneration registry for the legal representation of workers. It must include the average values ​​of salaries, salary supplements and extra-salary perceptions of the entire workforce (including managers and senior positions) disaggregated by sex.
        • remuneration audit: Those companies that draw up an equality plan must include a remuneration audit in it. Its purpose is to check if the company’s remuneration system complies with the effective application of the principle of equality, defining the needs to avoid, correct and prevent obstacles and difficulties that may exist.

        The measures contained in this new standard will come into effect on April 14, 2021.

        Ignacio Alonso

        Rechtsgebiete

        • Agentur
        • Unternehmen
        • Vertrieb
        • Franchising
        Kontakt Ignacio

        Schreiben Sie an Ignacio





          Legalmondos Datenschutzbestimmungen lesen.
          This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

          Spain – New laws on equal pay and equality plans

          30. November 2020

          • Spanien
          • Unternehmen
          • Arbeit

          What a director of a company in Spain must do to resign? Is it enough to send a communication to the company stating his resignation? Or does he have to call a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute? Or does he even have to do something else?

          A recent Supreme Court ruling dated July 12, 2022 (STS 561/2022) has resolved an interesting case related to the resignation of a sole director of an LLC, confirming that resigning is not as simple as it may seem.

          The SC, indeed, established that a sole director, to resign, must not only prove that he validly called a Shareholders‘ Meeting for the appointment of a substitute, but he must also prove that he did everything necessary during the interim period (i.e.: the time between the resignation and the holding of the Meeting) to meet the needs of management and representation of the company and to avoid damages. Even, and this is the case discussed in the STS, requiring the presence of a notary at the Meeting, if so required by shareholders representing at least 5% of the share capital.

          The case recently ruled by the SC involved a company with two shareholders: the majority partner with 75% of the capital, and the minority partner (and sole administrator) with 25%. The sole administrator resigned and called a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute. The majority shareholder required the presence of a Notary at the Meeting; but the resigning director refused, stating that – following his resignation – he had no obligation regarding the Meeting.

          On the day of the Meeting, the majority shareholder was present, but neither the resigning administrator nor the Notary were, therefore the Shareholder’s Meeting was not held.

          The administrator filed the deed of resignation with the Commercial Registry and the majority shareholder – at the same time – filed a document denouncing that the resigning administrator had not requested the presence of a Notary at the Meeting, despite having been requested to do so.

          Thereafter, several resolutions with very different contents were issued. The Commercial Registrar suspended the registration of the resignation, but the „Dirección General del Notariado y de los Registros“ (General Directorate of Notaries and Registries) decided that the resignation should be registered. The Commercial Court of Barcelona confirmed this last decision, and so did the Provincial Court. But the Supreme Court finally gave reason to the Mercantile Registrar.

          The rulings in favor of the registration of the resignation argued, firstly, that the outgoing administrator exhausted his responsibilities by convening the Shareholder’s Meeting; and secondly, that the Registrar must examine only if a document may be entered in the register, without considering the „extra-registry reality“, such as the document presented by the majority shareholder complaining about the administrator’s actions.

          The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the absence of a Notary, validly requested by the majority shareholder, rendered ineffective all the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. Based on this, the Supreme Court considered it „logical“ that in such a case the administrator should not only call the Shareholder’s Meeting but also require the presence of a Notary, in order to grant the validity of the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. With respect to the second controversial issue, the Supreme Court ruled that the Registrar, although exceptionally, can take into account certain circumstances or facts of which he has „registry evidence“, even if they do not appear by virtue of documents presented for their inscription, as long as they are related to the „inscribable“ document.

          In short, this interesting case shows that resigning as an administrator is not an easy activity. In general, although there is no specific provision on the subject in the Spanish system, the resigning administrator must not only call a Shareholder’s Meeting, but also remain administrator on an interim basis and attend to his obligations until the Shareholder’s Meeting is held; then, if the Shareholder’s Meeting is not held due to the non-attendance of the shareholders or if the shareholders do not appoint a substitute administrator, nothing more is required from the resigning administrator.

          Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Obersten Gerichtshofs Spaniens kann ein Handelsvertreter Anspruch auf Ausgleichszahlungen für die Kundschaft haben, wenn Artikel 28 des Handelsvertretergesetzes analog angewendet wird (die „inspirierende Idee„). Dieser Ausgleich wird für den Handelsvertreter auf der Grundlage der in den letzten fünf Jahren erhaltenen Vergütungen berechnet.

          In einem Vertriebsvertrag gibt es jedoch keine „Vergütungen“, wie sie der Handelsvertreter erhält (Provisionen, Festbeträge oder andere), sondern „Handelsspannen“ (Differenzen zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis). Es stellt sich also die Frage, welche Größenordnung für die Kundenvergütung in einem Vertriebsvertrag in Betracht zu ziehen ist: Entweder die „Bruttomarge“ (die bereits erwähnte Differenz zwischen dem Einkaufs- und dem Wiederverkaufspreis) oder die „Nettomarge“ (dieselbe Differenz, aber abzüglich anderer Ausgaben und Steuern, die dem Vertriebshändler entstanden sind).

          Die bisherige Schlussfolgerung schien darin zu bestehen, die Vergütung des Vertriebshändlers aus seinen „Bruttomargen“ zu berechnen, da dies eine Größe ist, die eher mit der „Vergütung“ des Handelsvertreters vergleichbar ist: Andere Ausgaben und Steuern des Vertriebshändlers konnten nicht in der gleichen Weise abgezogen werden wie bei einem Handelsvertretervertrag, bei dem weder Ausgaben noch Steuern abgezogen wurden.

          Der Oberste Gerichtshof (17. November 1999) hatte darauf hingewiesen, dass es für die Berechnung der Entschädigung für die Kunden „angemessener ist, sie als Bruttobeitrag zu betrachten, da der Vertreter damit alle Auslagen seiner kommerziellen Organisation decken muss„. Außerdem stellen die „erzielten Einkünfte“ „keine Vergütung im gleichen Sinne dar“ (21. Oktober 2008), da solche „Leistungen“ „zum internen Bereich der eigenen Organisation des Vertreters gehören“ (12. März 2012).

          Kürzlich wurde jedoch in einem Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 1. März 2017 (bestätigt durch ein weiteres Urteil vom 19. Mai 2017) die Auffassung vertreten, dass die Bestimmung der Höhe der Kundenentschädigung in einem Vertriebsvertrag nicht auf der Grundlage der vom Vertriebshändler erzielten „Bruttomargen“ erfolgen kann, sondern auf der Grundlage der „Nettomarge“. Um zu dieser Schlussfolgerung zu gelangen, verweist das Gericht auf ein Urteil desselben Gerichts aus dem Jahr 2016 sowie auf weitere Urteile aus den Jahren 2010 und 2007.

          Bedeutet dies eine Änderung der Rechtsprechung? Meiner Meinung nach ist diese Lesart des Obersten Gerichtshofs nicht richtig. Lassen Sie uns sehen, warum.

          Im Urteil vom März 2017 wird der Disjunktiv zwischen Brutto- und Nettomarge im zweiten Rechtsgrund erwähnt und bezieht sich auf das Urteil von 2016.

          In diesem Urteil aus dem Jahr 2016 heißt es, dass in einem anderen Urteil aus dem Jahr 2010 zwar nicht entschieden wurde, ob die Berechnung auf der Grundlage der Brutto- oder der Nettomarge erfolgen muss, in einem früheren Urteil aus dem Jahr 2007 jedoch eingeräumt wurde, dass der vom Händler erzielte Nettogewinn (Gewinn nach Abzug von Kosten und Steuern) und nicht die Marge, d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis, mit der Vergütung des Vertreters vergleichbar ist.

          Meines Erachtens bezieht sich der Oberste Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil vom März 2017 in letzter Instanz auf das Urteil 296/2007, was dort nicht gesagt wurde. Im Jahr 2007 bezifferte der Oberste Gerichtshof nicht die Entschädigung der Kundschaft, sondern den Schadenersatz. Genauer gesagt, und nach der Feststellung, dass „die Entschädigung der Kunden in der Klage klar und eindeutig gefordert werden muss„, kam der Gerichtshof zu dem Schluss, dass die Kammer „entscheiden muss, was den Bedingungen entspricht, unter denen die Debatte … in der ursprünglichen Klage geführt wurde. Und da … das Interesse an einer Entschädigung hauptsächlich auf der Dauer der Beziehung beruhte … besteht die Lösung, die der Rechtsprechung dieses Gerichtshofs besser entspricht, darin, als Entschädigung einen Betrag festzusetzen, der dem Nettonutzen entspricht, der durch den Vertrieb der Produkte … in dem Jahr unmittelbar vor der Beendigung des Vertrags erzielt wurde“. In diesem Urteil von 2007 entschied der Gerichtshof also nicht über die Entschädigung der Kunden, sondern über den Schadenersatz.

          Auf diese Weise wurde die Schlussfolgerung aus dem Jahr 2007, den Schadensersatz auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen zu berechnen, ohne weitere Analyse auf das Jahr 2016 übertragen, allerdings für die Berechnung der Kundenentschädigung. Dieses Kriterium wird nun in den Urteilen des Jahres 2017 fast automatisch wieder aufgegriffen.

          Meines Erachtens sollte jedoch trotz der Änderung der Rechtsprechung die These vorherrschen, dass bei der analogen Anwendung des Kundenausgleichs in Vertriebsverträgen die Größe, die der „Vergütung“ des Vertreters entspricht, die „Bruttomarge“ ist, die der Vertriebshändler erzielt, und nicht seine „Nettomarge“: Es macht nicht viel Sinn, dass, wenn die Analogie angewandt wird, um den Kundenausgleich an einen Vertriebshändler anzuerkennen, dieser von seinen Bruttomargenbeträgen abgezogen wird, um seine Marge oder seinen Nettogewinn zu erreichen. Der Handelsvertreter hat auch seine Ausgaben und zahlt auch seine Steuern ausgehend von seinen „Vergütungen“, und nichts in der Richtlinie 86/653/EWG oder im Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag erlaubt es, solche Beträge abzuziehen, um seine Kundenvergütung zu berechnen. Meiner Meinung nach sollten daher die Vertriebshändler gleichgestellt werden: Die Größen, die verglichen werden könnten, sollten die (Brutto-)Vergütungen des Vertreters mit den (Brutto-)Margen des Vertriebshändlers sein (d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis).

          Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die Urteile vom 1. März und 19. Mai 2017 auf einem meines Erachtens früheren Irrtum beharren und zusätzliche Verwirrung in einer Frage stiften, die bereits erörtert wurde: Die analoge Anwendung der Kundenentschädigung auf die Vertriebsverträge und die Berechnungsmethode.

          Aktualisierungsmitteilung (27. Januar 2020)

          In einem kürzlich ergangenen Beschluss („Auto“) des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 20. November 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 über die Unzulässigkeit eines Rechtsmittels) hatte der Gerichtshof Gelegenheit, auf diese Frage zurückzukommen und die Kriterien der letzten Rechtsprechung zu bestätigen: Die  in den Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigende Größe für die Anwendung der Analogie und die Berechnung der Goodwill-Entschädigung sind die „Nettomargen“ .

          In diesem Verfahren legte ein Vertriebsunternehmen Berufung gegen die Entscheidung des Landgerichts Barcelona ein, das den Ausgleich auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen und nicht der Bruttomargen anerkannte. Der Händler beantragte beim Obersten Gerichtshof die Aufhebung dieses Urteils mit der Begründung, dass es nach der neuesten Rechtsprechung ergangen sei, die nach Ansicht des Rechtsmittelführers fehlerhaft sei.

          Der Oberste Gerichtshof scheint jedoch zu bestätigen, dass im Gegensatz zu der These, die ich oben in diesem Beitrag vertreten habe, „kein angeblicher Fehler in der jüngsten Rechtsprechung bei der analogen Auslegung von Art. 28.3 des Gesetzes über den Handelsvertreter für den Vertriebsvertrag und somit auch nicht die Notwendigkeit besteht, die jüngste Rechtsprechung zu diesem Thema zu überprüfen“. Wenn der Oberste Gerichtshof seine jüngste Rechtsprechung nicht überprüft und das Urteil, in dem die Nettomargen angewandt wurden, für akzeptabel hält, müssen wir folglich davon ausgehen, dass die Größenordnung, die bei der Entschädigung der Kundschaft in Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigen ist, die Nettomargen und nicht die Bruttomargen sind.

          Mit dieser Entscheidung scheint  das Gericht also die Diskussion zu beenden, die jedoch meiner Meinung nach weiterhin zu zahlreichen Diskussionen führen wird.

          Artists (actors, singers) and sportsmen, non-residents in Spanish territory, who occasionally carry out their artistic or sporting activities in Spain, are usually unaware of their tax obligations before the Spanish Tax Authorities.

          In this respect, we would like to point out that, in the last year, the inspection activity of the Spanish Tax Administration has increased considerably in relation to these taxpayers. This is a consequence of the fact that the Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan of the State Agency issued by the Spanish Tax Administration (AEAT) expressly included the intensification of the control of the income obtained by non-resident artists and sportsmen who act or develop an activity in Spain within the year 2020.

          Spanish legislation, which regulates the Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR), establishes literally that: it is considered income obtained in Spanish territory, among others, that which derives, directly or indirectly, from the personal performance in Spanish territory of artists and sportsmen, and that which derives from any other activity related to such performance, even if it is received by a person or entity other than the artist or sportsman.

          This means that the artist or sportsman who performs an activity in Spain for which he or she obtains income, is subject to tax obligations and to the payment of taxes in Spain and must declare not only the income directly related to his or her performance but also other income linked to his or her professional performance, such as sponsorships, image rights, etc…

          The above is understood regardless of whether the actual recipient of the income derived from the athlete’s or artist’s performance is the artist or athlete himself or herself, a company in which he or she has any interest, or a third individual or legal entity with no apparent connection to the athlete or artist.

          Therefore, even if the company that pays such income is a non-resident in Spanish territory and the payment takes place physically outside such territory, any income obtained in Spain will be considered subject to tax (19% for EU residents and 24% for non-EU residents) when it is obtained on account of the artistic or sporting activity carried out in the Spanish territory.

          Most of the double taxation international treaties that Spain has signed with other countries allow the country in which the activity of the artist or athlete takes place to tax the income generated from such activity. All these agreements also establish mechanisms to avoid double taxation, but this possibility is considerably complicated when, as in many cases, the artist or sportsman receives his income through a company incorporated in his country of residence or in a third country instead of receiving it directly as an individual.

          Often the contracts signed by artists and sportsmen are signed by companies related to them -usually domiciled in their country of residence-, this situation is giving rise to serious difficulties for them to deduct in their country of residence (and within the scope of Corporate Income Tax) the tax paid in Spain as an individual.

          We therefore want to highlight (i) the existence of important tax obligations that affects artists and sportsmen who are not resident in Spanish territory for the activities they carry out in Spain and, furthermore, (ii) the need for them to receive adequate prior advice on the tax consequences of their activity and, consequently, on the best vehicle to formalize their contracting.

          Summary

          One of the issues when setting up a (subsidiary) company in Spain which creates more practical difficulties is the question of powers of attorney: What is a power of attorney, are they necessary and how do they work? In Spain this question is of practical relevance and its operation does not always coincide with what happens in other countries. In this commentary, we will give you some ideas on how to act with these powers of attorney when setting up a company.

          What is a power of attorney? A power of attorney allows a person (attorney-in-fact or representative) to act on behalf of a company. The attorney-in-fact may, for example, sign a contract on behalf of a company if that company has given him or her the power (authority) to do so. For example, borrowing money from a bank.

          To do this the company will have two types of representatives: an „organic representative“ (the directors) and „voluntary representatives“ (attorneys-in-fact).

          First, a company must have at least one director

          The director(s) is the „organic representative“. In other words, he/she is an organ (management body) of the company, represents it and can contract on its behalf.

          This „organ“ may be a single person (a single director), it may be several persons acting individually or jointly, or it may be a board of directors („collegial body“). The power of representation resides in the „organ“. It is the body that represents the company and not necessarily its members.

          The first task, therefore, is to decide on the structure of the body, and this is taken when the company is incorporated, although it can be changed later. In this way, the sole director will have all the powers to represent the company, the individual directors will also have them if they are „joint and several” or will have to act jointly if they are „joint“ directors, and the board will also have them, but as a body (not each director individually).

          This last remark (the powers are held by the body and not necessarily by its members) is important when the company is managed by a board of directors. The fact that there is a board of directors does not imply that each member has the powers to represent the company, but that they are held by the body as a whole. The board may, however, delegate them. When the board delegates the powers to one of its directors (it is possible, but not obligatory to appoint one), the latter becomes a „managing director“ (Consejero Delegado). This director may then represent the company in all matters delegated to him/her.

          Secondly, in addition to the directors, the company may have (not compulsory) other „proxies“ (empowered person)

          These are the „voluntary representatives“, i.e. appointed „at the will“ of the company.

          A proxy is someone to whom the company gives powers to represent it. Powers to do certain things.

          As we said at the beginning, in Spain, acting by proxy is quite strict, so that a company cannot normally be represented by anyone who does not have the power to do so. For example, if the company authorises (empowers) a person only to sign banking contracts, he/she will not be able to sign contracts with employees.

          The powers granted to a person must therefore be express. If a person is authorised to open a bank account, he/she is not supposed to be able to borrow money. And in this way, the powers serve as a framework for action: what the attorney-in-fact can do and what the limits are. And sometimes these limits come from the power itself (opening a bank account does not authorise borrowing) or can be quantitative (borrowing, but only up to 100,000 euros), or temporary (borrowing, but until 31 December 2025) or even requiring more than one person to act (borrowing, but co-signing with person „Z“). And, of course, a combination of all of them: attorney-in-fact „X“ can take out loans by signing with attorney-in-fact „W“ up to 100,000 euros, and with attorney-in-fact „Z“ up to 1,000,000 euros.

          When setting up a company in Spain, it is therefore highly advisable to think about how the powers are to be granted, especially if the administrative body does not reside in our country. As we have seen from experience, it is not uncommon to set up a company by appointing an administrator resident abroad without appointing a proxy in Spain. This is legally valid, but, in a way, it hinders the functioning of the company: the only person to sign contracts and represent the company resides abroad, which, from a practical point of view, will be a major disadvantage.

          The procedure for empowering a person is simple. All it takes is a decision of the administrative body, formalisation before a notary and registration in the Commercial Register. In this way, anyone can verify that the person appointed can represent the company in that particular act. This does require a person of trust to be found (an employee, a resident partner, a third party), but the risk can be modulated by the limitation possibilities described above.

          In conclusion

          When setting up a company in Spain, if the administrator will not be resident in Spain, consider how to organise the powers of attorney, whom to empower and how to limit, if necessary, their powers.

          And the powers of attorney that you will need most and most urgently are:

          • (a) those that will allow you to contract with banks (opening and managing bank accounts),
          • (b) those relating to employees (hiring, registration with social security, payment of salaries),
          • (c) those for supply contracts (electricity, water, telephone) and other general contracts (rental, vehicles, distribution contracts); and
          • (d) managing the company’s electronic signature (relations with public administrations, tax payments).

          Failure to take this decision in a timely manner could delay or hinder the activity being started.

          And if in doubt, it is best to consult a local lawyer.

          Arbitration is a procedure for resolving disputes between parties that is very successful in the Anglo-Saxon legal system. But much less in our country.

          Arbitration has advantages and disadvantages; it is more expensive than the Courts, but it is much quicker; and speed is essential for justice to be such.

          Typically, an arbitration lasts six months plus a couple of months for the appointment of the arbitrator; in total, a dispute, however important and difficult it may be, can be definitively resolved in eight months.

          To compare with the Courts, in Spain today it takes on average eighteen months to obtain a judgement at first instance and another eighteen months for an appeal; without considering the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

          The cornerstone on which arbitration rests is that the arbitral award is final and definitive and cannot be reviewed or appealed; this statement has certain exceptions, mainly of a formal or procedural nature: basically, the legality of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the matter and the procedural regularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. These defects can be attacked by means of an action for annulment, which is heard by the ordinary courts.

          But in addition to the possible “formal” defects, the action for annulment can be based on the allegation of a breach of “public order”, which the Constitutional Court has defined and outlined as “those public and private, political, moral and economic legal principles which are absolutely obligatory for the preservation of society in a given people and at a given time”.

          As this definition of “public order” is undoubtedly broad and unspecific, the use of the violation of public order as a tool for declaring the nullity of arbitral awards by the ordinary courts has produced an “overflow” effect that has required, in the words of the Constitutional Court, “a restrictive interpretation of it, on pain of violating the autonomy of the will of the parties and their waiver of judicial protection”.

          This is what the Court has proclaimed in the very important judgement of 15 February 2021, which is the reason for this legal note.

          In recent years, the High Court of Justice of Madrid has resorted to the argument of “public order” in an extensive and “overwhelmed” manner to annul arbitral awards and “supplant the arbitral tribunal in its function of applying the law”, becoming “a second instance reviewing the facts and rights applied in the arbitral award, a control mechanism for the correct application of jurisprudence”.

          And this expansive and “overwhelmed” interpretation of public order as a tool for annulling arbitral awards by the High Court of Justice of Madrid had become a serious problem for the arbitral institution and for the confidence of the contracting parties when including arbitration agreements in their contracts.

          The principle that the arbitral award was the final and definitive solution to the dispute it was intended to resolve, except for procedural breaches or breaches of public order limited to those cases in which the arbitral award was arbitrary, illogical, absurd or irrational, was called into question and was a clear deterrent to contracting parties deciding to resolve their discrepancies through arbitration.

          Well then, the Constitutional Court, in a categorical and explicit manner, repeating what it had already stated in its judgement of June last year, confirms that the need for the arbitral award not to contravene public order cannot result in the judicial body replacing the arbitrator in his function of applying the law, nor can it become a second instance reviewing the facts and legal grounds applied in the arbitral award, nor a mechanism for controlling the correct application of case law.

          The principle of party autonomy prevails; and this means that when there is submission to arbitration, the parties have agreed that it should be through this channel that disputes between them are to be resolved, by means of the arbitrator’s decision, which can only be annulled through the strict channels that the Arbitration Act regulates; we insist, for procedural reasons or for violating public order in the restricted interpretation explained in the judgement we are commenting on; but in no case, by way of a second instance where the facts and legal grounds applied are re-evaluated once again.

          In short, Spanish arbitration is to be congratulated, and will be able to recover the momentum that caused it to lose, in part, the extensive interpretation of public order defended by some High Courts of Justice. From now on, the Courts will not be able to ignore the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, which is a breath of fresh air for Spanish arbitration.

          Zusammenfassung

          Bei der Beendigung von Handelsvertreter- und Vertriebsverträgen ist der Hauptkonfliktpunkt die Entschädigung für den Goodwill (Kundenstamm). Das spanische Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag sieht – ebenso wie die Richtlinie über Handelsvertreter – vor, dass der Handelsvertreter bei Beendigung des Vertrags unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen Anspruch auf einen Ausgleich hat. In Spanien kann dieser Ausgleich analog (wenn auch mit Einschränkungen und Abweichungen ) auch bei Vertriebsverträgen geltend gemacht werden.

          Für den Zuspruch eines  Kundenausgleichs ist es erforderlich, dass der Handelsvertreter (oder der Vertriebshändler: siehe diesen Beitrag, um mehr zu erfahren) neue Kunden gewonnen oder die Geschäfte mit bereits bestehenden Kunden erheblich ausgeweitet hat, sodass seine Tätigkeit dem Auftraggeber weiterhin erhebliche Vorteile bringen kann. Die Höhe der hierfür zu leistenden Ausgleichszahlung muss angemessen sein. All dies ist Voraussetzung für die Anerkennung des Ausgleichsanspruchs und dessen Höhe.

          Diese Begriffe (neue Kunden, erhebliche Ausweitung der Geschäfte mit bestehenden Kunden, wesentliche Vorteile, Angemessenheit der Ausgleichszahlung ) sind im Vorfeld schwer zu definieren, so dass es sich empfiehlt, die Klagen vor Gericht von Fall zu Fall auf Gutachten zu stützen, die von einem Anwalt überwacht werden.

          Zumindest in Spanien besteht die Tendenz, direkt den Höchstbetrag zu fordern, den die dort geltende Norm vorsieht (ein Jahresgehalt, das als Durchschnitt der letzten fünf Jahre berechnet wird), ohne eine weitere Analyse vorzunehmen. Bei einem derart pauschalen Vorgehen  besteht jedoch die Gefahr, dass ein Richter den Antrag als unbegründet zurückweist.

          Aus diesem Grund und aufgrund unserer Erfahrung halte ich es für angebracht, Hinweise zu geben, wie der Anspruch auf  Entschädigung und deren Höhe sich im Einzelfall begründen lässt.

          Der Vertreter/Händler, der Sachverständige und der Anwalt sollten Folgendes berücksichtigen:

          Prüfen Sie, wie hoch der Beitrag des Vertreters  war

          Entscheidend ist, ob  es bereits vor Vertragsbeginn Kunden gab und welches Umsatzvolumen mit ihnen erzielt wurde. Für die Anerkennung dieses Ausgleichs ist es entscheidend  ob der Vertreter die Zahl der Kunden erhöht hat oder mit bereits bestehenden Kunden arbeitet.

          Analyse des fortlaufenden Kundenwerts für den Auftraggeber

          Ihre Wiederkehr, ihre Loyalität (zum Auftraggeber und nicht zum Vermittler), die Abwanderungsrate (wie viele von ihnen werden nach  Vertragsabschluss beim Auftraggeber oder beim Vermittler bleiben) – nach all diesen Kriterien bemisst sich der Wert des durch den Vermittler gewonnenen Kundenstamms. In der Tat wird es schwierig sein, von einem „Kundenstamm“ zu sprechen, wenn es sich nur um sporadische, gelegentliche, nicht wiederkehrende oder nur wenige Kunden handelt, oder um Kunden, die in Zukunft dem Handelsvertreter und nicht dem Auftraggeber treu bleiben werden.

          Wie verhält sich der Vermittler bei Vertragsende?

          Die entscheidende Frage, die sich hier stellt: Kann er mit dem Auftraggeber konkurrieren oder gibt es Einschränkungen im Vertrag? Wenn der Handelsvertreter weiterhin dieselben Kunden betreuen kann, aber für einen anderen Auftraggeber, könnte die Entschädigung sehr wohl diskutiert werden.

          Ist die Vergütung angemessen?

          Untersuchen Sie hierfür, wie der Vertreter in der Vergangenheit gehandelt hat: Ob er seinen Verpflichtungen nachgekommen ist, wie er beiEinführung der Produkte oder der Markterschließung vorgegangen ist, wie sich diese Produkte oder Dienstleistungen in Zukunft entwickeln könnten usw.

          Wird der Vermittler seine Provisionen verlieren?

          Hier ist zu prüfen, ob der Vermittler  einer Ausschließlichkeitsbindung unterlag , ob es ihm leichter oder schwerer fiel im Anschluss, einen neuen Vertrag zu bekommen (z. B. aufgrund seines Alters, der Wirtschaftskrise, der Art der Produkte usw.) oder ob er eine neue Einnahmequelle hatte, wie sich die Umsätze in den letzten Jahren entwickelt haben (die für eine Entschädigung in Frage kommen) usw.

          Welches ist der gesetzliche Höchstwert, der nicht überschritten werden darf?

          Der Jahresdurchschnitt der während der Vertragslaufzeit (oder während eines Zeitraums von 5 Jahre, wenn der Vertrag länger dauerte) erhaltenen Beträge. Dazu gehören nicht nur die Provisionen, sondern auch etwaige Festbeträge, Boni, Preise usw. oder Margen im Falle von Vertriebshändlern.

          Und schließlich ist es zweckmäßig, alle analysierten Dokumente in den Bericht des Sachverständigen aufzunehmen

          Wenn dies nicht geschieht und sie nur erwähnt werden, könnte dies dazu führen, dass sie von einem Richter nicht berücksichtigt werden.

          Lesen Sie den praktischen Leitfaden für internationale Agenturvereinbarungen

          Weitere Informationen über die wichtigsten Merkmale eines Geschäftsbesorgungsvertrags in Spanien finden Sie in unserem Leitfaden.

          International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

          The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

          What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

          The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

          The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

          Verification of the identity of the company

          Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

          Request of financial  information

          What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

          Use the right contract

          What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

          Write down your agreements

          Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

          Follow your contract

          If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

          Document all transactions

          From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

          Has the debtor risen objections?

          Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

          Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

          In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

          Seek guarantees for your credits

          This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

          Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

          Check out our webinar on debt collection

          On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

          You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

          Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

          If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

          The Spanish government has recently approved two new rules on equal pay and equality plans which will come into force in January and April 2021 and affect all companies.

          1. Royal Decree 901/2020, of October 13, which regulates the equality plans and their registration

          An „equality plan“ is understood to be that ordered set of measures adopted after carrying out a situation diagnosis, aimed at achieving equal treatment and opportunities between women and men in the company, and eliminating discrimination based on sex.

          All companies that have 50 or more workers are obliged to draw up and apply an equality plan, its implementation being voluntary for other companies. In any case, equality plans, including previous diagnoses, must be subject to negotiation with the legal representation of the workers, in accordance with the procedure legally established for that purpose.

          Regarding the content of the plans, they must include, among others, definition of quantitative and qualitative objectives, description of the specific measures to be adopted, identification of means and resources, calendar of actions, monitoring and evaluation systems, etc. In addition, they must be subject to mandatory registration in a public registry.

          This new Royal Decree will enter into force on January 14, 2021.

          2. Royal Decree 902/2020, of October 13, of equal pay between women and men

          The purpose of this new Royal Decree is to implement specific measures that make it possible to enforce the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination between women and men in matters of remuneration.

          For this, the companies and collective agreements must integrate and apply the so-called „principle of remuneration transparency„, which applied to the different aspects that determine the remuneration of workers, allows obtaining sufficient and significant information on the value attributed to such remuneration.

          For the application of the aforementioned principle, the Royal Decree provides, fundamentally, two instruments:

          • remuneration registry: All companies must have an accessible remuneration registry for the legal representation of workers. It must include the average values ​​of salaries, salary supplements and extra-salary perceptions of the entire workforce (including managers and senior positions) disaggregated by sex.
          • remuneration audit: Those companies that draw up an equality plan must include a remuneration audit in it. Its purpose is to check if the company’s remuneration system complies with the effective application of the principle of equality, defining the needs to avoid, correct and prevent obstacles and difficulties that may exist.

          The measures contained in this new standard will come into effect on April 14, 2021.

          Javier Gaspar

          Rechtsgebiete

          • Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit
          • Vertrieb
          • Franchising
          • Rechtsstreitigkeiten
          • Sport
          Kontakt Javier

          Schreiben Sie an Javier





            Legalmondos Datenschutzbestimmungen lesen.
            This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

            Spain – The Supreme Court concludes that the „riders“ are false self-employed

            17. Oktober 2020

            • Spanien
            • Arbeit

            What a director of a company in Spain must do to resign? Is it enough to send a communication to the company stating his resignation? Or does he have to call a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute? Or does he even have to do something else?

            A recent Supreme Court ruling dated July 12, 2022 (STS 561/2022) has resolved an interesting case related to the resignation of a sole director of an LLC, confirming that resigning is not as simple as it may seem.

            The SC, indeed, established that a sole director, to resign, must not only prove that he validly called a Shareholders‘ Meeting for the appointment of a substitute, but he must also prove that he did everything necessary during the interim period (i.e.: the time between the resignation and the holding of the Meeting) to meet the needs of management and representation of the company and to avoid damages. Even, and this is the case discussed in the STS, requiring the presence of a notary at the Meeting, if so required by shareholders representing at least 5% of the share capital.

            The case recently ruled by the SC involved a company with two shareholders: the majority partner with 75% of the capital, and the minority partner (and sole administrator) with 25%. The sole administrator resigned and called a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute. The majority shareholder required the presence of a Notary at the Meeting; but the resigning director refused, stating that – following his resignation – he had no obligation regarding the Meeting.

            On the day of the Meeting, the majority shareholder was present, but neither the resigning administrator nor the Notary were, therefore the Shareholder’s Meeting was not held.

            The administrator filed the deed of resignation with the Commercial Registry and the majority shareholder – at the same time – filed a document denouncing that the resigning administrator had not requested the presence of a Notary at the Meeting, despite having been requested to do so.

            Thereafter, several resolutions with very different contents were issued. The Commercial Registrar suspended the registration of the resignation, but the „Dirección General del Notariado y de los Registros“ (General Directorate of Notaries and Registries) decided that the resignation should be registered. The Commercial Court of Barcelona confirmed this last decision, and so did the Provincial Court. But the Supreme Court finally gave reason to the Mercantile Registrar.

            The rulings in favor of the registration of the resignation argued, firstly, that the outgoing administrator exhausted his responsibilities by convening the Shareholder’s Meeting; and secondly, that the Registrar must examine only if a document may be entered in the register, without considering the „extra-registry reality“, such as the document presented by the majority shareholder complaining about the administrator’s actions.

            The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the absence of a Notary, validly requested by the majority shareholder, rendered ineffective all the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. Based on this, the Supreme Court considered it „logical“ that in such a case the administrator should not only call the Shareholder’s Meeting but also require the presence of a Notary, in order to grant the validity of the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. With respect to the second controversial issue, the Supreme Court ruled that the Registrar, although exceptionally, can take into account certain circumstances or facts of which he has „registry evidence“, even if they do not appear by virtue of documents presented for their inscription, as long as they are related to the „inscribable“ document.

            In short, this interesting case shows that resigning as an administrator is not an easy activity. In general, although there is no specific provision on the subject in the Spanish system, the resigning administrator must not only call a Shareholder’s Meeting, but also remain administrator on an interim basis and attend to his obligations until the Shareholder’s Meeting is held; then, if the Shareholder’s Meeting is not held due to the non-attendance of the shareholders or if the shareholders do not appoint a substitute administrator, nothing more is required from the resigning administrator.

            Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Obersten Gerichtshofs Spaniens kann ein Handelsvertreter Anspruch auf Ausgleichszahlungen für die Kundschaft haben, wenn Artikel 28 des Handelsvertretergesetzes analog angewendet wird (die „inspirierende Idee„). Dieser Ausgleich wird für den Handelsvertreter auf der Grundlage der in den letzten fünf Jahren erhaltenen Vergütungen berechnet.

            In einem Vertriebsvertrag gibt es jedoch keine „Vergütungen“, wie sie der Handelsvertreter erhält (Provisionen, Festbeträge oder andere), sondern „Handelsspannen“ (Differenzen zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis). Es stellt sich also die Frage, welche Größenordnung für die Kundenvergütung in einem Vertriebsvertrag in Betracht zu ziehen ist: Entweder die „Bruttomarge“ (die bereits erwähnte Differenz zwischen dem Einkaufs- und dem Wiederverkaufspreis) oder die „Nettomarge“ (dieselbe Differenz, aber abzüglich anderer Ausgaben und Steuern, die dem Vertriebshändler entstanden sind).

            Die bisherige Schlussfolgerung schien darin zu bestehen, die Vergütung des Vertriebshändlers aus seinen „Bruttomargen“ zu berechnen, da dies eine Größe ist, die eher mit der „Vergütung“ des Handelsvertreters vergleichbar ist: Andere Ausgaben und Steuern des Vertriebshändlers konnten nicht in der gleichen Weise abgezogen werden wie bei einem Handelsvertretervertrag, bei dem weder Ausgaben noch Steuern abgezogen wurden.

            Der Oberste Gerichtshof (17. November 1999) hatte darauf hingewiesen, dass es für die Berechnung der Entschädigung für die Kunden „angemessener ist, sie als Bruttobeitrag zu betrachten, da der Vertreter damit alle Auslagen seiner kommerziellen Organisation decken muss„. Außerdem stellen die „erzielten Einkünfte“ „keine Vergütung im gleichen Sinne dar“ (21. Oktober 2008), da solche „Leistungen“ „zum internen Bereich der eigenen Organisation des Vertreters gehören“ (12. März 2012).

            Kürzlich wurde jedoch in einem Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 1. März 2017 (bestätigt durch ein weiteres Urteil vom 19. Mai 2017) die Auffassung vertreten, dass die Bestimmung der Höhe der Kundenentschädigung in einem Vertriebsvertrag nicht auf der Grundlage der vom Vertriebshändler erzielten „Bruttomargen“ erfolgen kann, sondern auf der Grundlage der „Nettomarge“. Um zu dieser Schlussfolgerung zu gelangen, verweist das Gericht auf ein Urteil desselben Gerichts aus dem Jahr 2016 sowie auf weitere Urteile aus den Jahren 2010 und 2007.

            Bedeutet dies eine Änderung der Rechtsprechung? Meiner Meinung nach ist diese Lesart des Obersten Gerichtshofs nicht richtig. Lassen Sie uns sehen, warum.

            Im Urteil vom März 2017 wird der Disjunktiv zwischen Brutto- und Nettomarge im zweiten Rechtsgrund erwähnt und bezieht sich auf das Urteil von 2016.

            In diesem Urteil aus dem Jahr 2016 heißt es, dass in einem anderen Urteil aus dem Jahr 2010 zwar nicht entschieden wurde, ob die Berechnung auf der Grundlage der Brutto- oder der Nettomarge erfolgen muss, in einem früheren Urteil aus dem Jahr 2007 jedoch eingeräumt wurde, dass der vom Händler erzielte Nettogewinn (Gewinn nach Abzug von Kosten und Steuern) und nicht die Marge, d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis, mit der Vergütung des Vertreters vergleichbar ist.

            Meines Erachtens bezieht sich der Oberste Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil vom März 2017 in letzter Instanz auf das Urteil 296/2007, was dort nicht gesagt wurde. Im Jahr 2007 bezifferte der Oberste Gerichtshof nicht die Entschädigung der Kundschaft, sondern den Schadenersatz. Genauer gesagt, und nach der Feststellung, dass „die Entschädigung der Kunden in der Klage klar und eindeutig gefordert werden muss„, kam der Gerichtshof zu dem Schluss, dass die Kammer „entscheiden muss, was den Bedingungen entspricht, unter denen die Debatte … in der ursprünglichen Klage geführt wurde. Und da … das Interesse an einer Entschädigung hauptsächlich auf der Dauer der Beziehung beruhte … besteht die Lösung, die der Rechtsprechung dieses Gerichtshofs besser entspricht, darin, als Entschädigung einen Betrag festzusetzen, der dem Nettonutzen entspricht, der durch den Vertrieb der Produkte … in dem Jahr unmittelbar vor der Beendigung des Vertrags erzielt wurde“. In diesem Urteil von 2007 entschied der Gerichtshof also nicht über die Entschädigung der Kunden, sondern über den Schadenersatz.

            Auf diese Weise wurde die Schlussfolgerung aus dem Jahr 2007, den Schadensersatz auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen zu berechnen, ohne weitere Analyse auf das Jahr 2016 übertragen, allerdings für die Berechnung der Kundenentschädigung. Dieses Kriterium wird nun in den Urteilen des Jahres 2017 fast automatisch wieder aufgegriffen.

            Meines Erachtens sollte jedoch trotz der Änderung der Rechtsprechung die These vorherrschen, dass bei der analogen Anwendung des Kundenausgleichs in Vertriebsverträgen die Größe, die der „Vergütung“ des Vertreters entspricht, die „Bruttomarge“ ist, die der Vertriebshändler erzielt, und nicht seine „Nettomarge“: Es macht nicht viel Sinn, dass, wenn die Analogie angewandt wird, um den Kundenausgleich an einen Vertriebshändler anzuerkennen, dieser von seinen Bruttomargenbeträgen abgezogen wird, um seine Marge oder seinen Nettogewinn zu erreichen. Der Handelsvertreter hat auch seine Ausgaben und zahlt auch seine Steuern ausgehend von seinen „Vergütungen“, und nichts in der Richtlinie 86/653/EWG oder im Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag erlaubt es, solche Beträge abzuziehen, um seine Kundenvergütung zu berechnen. Meiner Meinung nach sollten daher die Vertriebshändler gleichgestellt werden: Die Größen, die verglichen werden könnten, sollten die (Brutto-)Vergütungen des Vertreters mit den (Brutto-)Margen des Vertriebshändlers sein (d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis).

            Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die Urteile vom 1. März und 19. Mai 2017 auf einem meines Erachtens früheren Irrtum beharren und zusätzliche Verwirrung in einer Frage stiften, die bereits erörtert wurde: Die analoge Anwendung der Kundenentschädigung auf die Vertriebsverträge und die Berechnungsmethode.

            Aktualisierungsmitteilung (27. Januar 2020)

            In einem kürzlich ergangenen Beschluss („Auto“) des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 20. November 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 über die Unzulässigkeit eines Rechtsmittels) hatte der Gerichtshof Gelegenheit, auf diese Frage zurückzukommen und die Kriterien der letzten Rechtsprechung zu bestätigen: Die  in den Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigende Größe für die Anwendung der Analogie und die Berechnung der Goodwill-Entschädigung sind die „Nettomargen“ .

            In diesem Verfahren legte ein Vertriebsunternehmen Berufung gegen die Entscheidung des Landgerichts Barcelona ein, das den Ausgleich auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen und nicht der Bruttomargen anerkannte. Der Händler beantragte beim Obersten Gerichtshof die Aufhebung dieses Urteils mit der Begründung, dass es nach der neuesten Rechtsprechung ergangen sei, die nach Ansicht des Rechtsmittelführers fehlerhaft sei.

            Der Oberste Gerichtshof scheint jedoch zu bestätigen, dass im Gegensatz zu der These, die ich oben in diesem Beitrag vertreten habe, „kein angeblicher Fehler in der jüngsten Rechtsprechung bei der analogen Auslegung von Art. 28.3 des Gesetzes über den Handelsvertreter für den Vertriebsvertrag und somit auch nicht die Notwendigkeit besteht, die jüngste Rechtsprechung zu diesem Thema zu überprüfen“. Wenn der Oberste Gerichtshof seine jüngste Rechtsprechung nicht überprüft und das Urteil, in dem die Nettomargen angewandt wurden, für akzeptabel hält, müssen wir folglich davon ausgehen, dass die Größenordnung, die bei der Entschädigung der Kundschaft in Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigen ist, die Nettomargen und nicht die Bruttomargen sind.

            Mit dieser Entscheidung scheint  das Gericht also die Diskussion zu beenden, die jedoch meiner Meinung nach weiterhin zu zahlreichen Diskussionen führen wird.

            Artists (actors, singers) and sportsmen, non-residents in Spanish territory, who occasionally carry out their artistic or sporting activities in Spain, are usually unaware of their tax obligations before the Spanish Tax Authorities.

            In this respect, we would like to point out that, in the last year, the inspection activity of the Spanish Tax Administration has increased considerably in relation to these taxpayers. This is a consequence of the fact that the Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan of the State Agency issued by the Spanish Tax Administration (AEAT) expressly included the intensification of the control of the income obtained by non-resident artists and sportsmen who act or develop an activity in Spain within the year 2020.

            Spanish legislation, which regulates the Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR), establishes literally that: it is considered income obtained in Spanish territory, among others, that which derives, directly or indirectly, from the personal performance in Spanish territory of artists and sportsmen, and that which derives from any other activity related to such performance, even if it is received by a person or entity other than the artist or sportsman.

            This means that the artist or sportsman who performs an activity in Spain for which he or she obtains income, is subject to tax obligations and to the payment of taxes in Spain and must declare not only the income directly related to his or her performance but also other income linked to his or her professional performance, such as sponsorships, image rights, etc…

            The above is understood regardless of whether the actual recipient of the income derived from the athlete’s or artist’s performance is the artist or athlete himself or herself, a company in which he or she has any interest, or a third individual or legal entity with no apparent connection to the athlete or artist.

            Therefore, even if the company that pays such income is a non-resident in Spanish territory and the payment takes place physically outside such territory, any income obtained in Spain will be considered subject to tax (19% for EU residents and 24% for non-EU residents) when it is obtained on account of the artistic or sporting activity carried out in the Spanish territory.

            Most of the double taxation international treaties that Spain has signed with other countries allow the country in which the activity of the artist or athlete takes place to tax the income generated from such activity. All these agreements also establish mechanisms to avoid double taxation, but this possibility is considerably complicated when, as in many cases, the artist or sportsman receives his income through a company incorporated in his country of residence or in a third country instead of receiving it directly as an individual.

            Often the contracts signed by artists and sportsmen are signed by companies related to them -usually domiciled in their country of residence-, this situation is giving rise to serious difficulties for them to deduct in their country of residence (and within the scope of Corporate Income Tax) the tax paid in Spain as an individual.

            We therefore want to highlight (i) the existence of important tax obligations that affects artists and sportsmen who are not resident in Spanish territory for the activities they carry out in Spain and, furthermore, (ii) the need for them to receive adequate prior advice on the tax consequences of their activity and, consequently, on the best vehicle to formalize their contracting.

            Summary

            One of the issues when setting up a (subsidiary) company in Spain which creates more practical difficulties is the question of powers of attorney: What is a power of attorney, are they necessary and how do they work? In Spain this question is of practical relevance and its operation does not always coincide with what happens in other countries. In this commentary, we will give you some ideas on how to act with these powers of attorney when setting up a company.

            What is a power of attorney? A power of attorney allows a person (attorney-in-fact or representative) to act on behalf of a company. The attorney-in-fact may, for example, sign a contract on behalf of a company if that company has given him or her the power (authority) to do so. For example, borrowing money from a bank.

            To do this the company will have two types of representatives: an „organic representative“ (the directors) and „voluntary representatives“ (attorneys-in-fact).

            First, a company must have at least one director

            The director(s) is the „organic representative“. In other words, he/she is an organ (management body) of the company, represents it and can contract on its behalf.

            This „organ“ may be a single person (a single director), it may be several persons acting individually or jointly, or it may be a board of directors („collegial body“). The power of representation resides in the „organ“. It is the body that represents the company and not necessarily its members.

            The first task, therefore, is to decide on the structure of the body, and this is taken when the company is incorporated, although it can be changed later. In this way, the sole director will have all the powers to represent the company, the individual directors will also have them if they are „joint and several” or will have to act jointly if they are „joint“ directors, and the board will also have them, but as a body (not each director individually).

            This last remark (the powers are held by the body and not necessarily by its members) is important when the company is managed by a board of directors. The fact that there is a board of directors does not imply that each member has the powers to represent the company, but that they are held by the body as a whole. The board may, however, delegate them. When the board delegates the powers to one of its directors (it is possible, but not obligatory to appoint one), the latter becomes a „managing director“ (Consejero Delegado). This director may then represent the company in all matters delegated to him/her.

            Secondly, in addition to the directors, the company may have (not compulsory) other „proxies“ (empowered person)

            These are the „voluntary representatives“, i.e. appointed „at the will“ of the company.

            A proxy is someone to whom the company gives powers to represent it. Powers to do certain things.

            As we said at the beginning, in Spain, acting by proxy is quite strict, so that a company cannot normally be represented by anyone who does not have the power to do so. For example, if the company authorises (empowers) a person only to sign banking contracts, he/she will not be able to sign contracts with employees.

            The powers granted to a person must therefore be express. If a person is authorised to open a bank account, he/she is not supposed to be able to borrow money. And in this way, the powers serve as a framework for action: what the attorney-in-fact can do and what the limits are. And sometimes these limits come from the power itself (opening a bank account does not authorise borrowing) or can be quantitative (borrowing, but only up to 100,000 euros), or temporary (borrowing, but until 31 December 2025) or even requiring more than one person to act (borrowing, but co-signing with person „Z“). And, of course, a combination of all of them: attorney-in-fact „X“ can take out loans by signing with attorney-in-fact „W“ up to 100,000 euros, and with attorney-in-fact „Z“ up to 1,000,000 euros.

            When setting up a company in Spain, it is therefore highly advisable to think about how the powers are to be granted, especially if the administrative body does not reside in our country. As we have seen from experience, it is not uncommon to set up a company by appointing an administrator resident abroad without appointing a proxy in Spain. This is legally valid, but, in a way, it hinders the functioning of the company: the only person to sign contracts and represent the company resides abroad, which, from a practical point of view, will be a major disadvantage.

            The procedure for empowering a person is simple. All it takes is a decision of the administrative body, formalisation before a notary and registration in the Commercial Register. In this way, anyone can verify that the person appointed can represent the company in that particular act. This does require a person of trust to be found (an employee, a resident partner, a third party), but the risk can be modulated by the limitation possibilities described above.

            In conclusion

            When setting up a company in Spain, if the administrator will not be resident in Spain, consider how to organise the powers of attorney, whom to empower and how to limit, if necessary, their powers.

            And the powers of attorney that you will need most and most urgently are:

            • (a) those that will allow you to contract with banks (opening and managing bank accounts),
            • (b) those relating to employees (hiring, registration with social security, payment of salaries),
            • (c) those for supply contracts (electricity, water, telephone) and other general contracts (rental, vehicles, distribution contracts); and
            • (d) managing the company’s electronic signature (relations with public administrations, tax payments).

            Failure to take this decision in a timely manner could delay or hinder the activity being started.

            And if in doubt, it is best to consult a local lawyer.

            Arbitration is a procedure for resolving disputes between parties that is very successful in the Anglo-Saxon legal system. But much less in our country.

            Arbitration has advantages and disadvantages; it is more expensive than the Courts, but it is much quicker; and speed is essential for justice to be such.

            Typically, an arbitration lasts six months plus a couple of months for the appointment of the arbitrator; in total, a dispute, however important and difficult it may be, can be definitively resolved in eight months.

            To compare with the Courts, in Spain today it takes on average eighteen months to obtain a judgement at first instance and another eighteen months for an appeal; without considering the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

            The cornerstone on which arbitration rests is that the arbitral award is final and definitive and cannot be reviewed or appealed; this statement has certain exceptions, mainly of a formal or procedural nature: basically, the legality of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the matter and the procedural regularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. These defects can be attacked by means of an action for annulment, which is heard by the ordinary courts.

            But in addition to the possible “formal” defects, the action for annulment can be based on the allegation of a breach of “public order”, which the Constitutional Court has defined and outlined as “those public and private, political, moral and economic legal principles which are absolutely obligatory for the preservation of society in a given people and at a given time”.

            As this definition of “public order” is undoubtedly broad and unspecific, the use of the violation of public order as a tool for declaring the nullity of arbitral awards by the ordinary courts has produced an “overflow” effect that has required, in the words of the Constitutional Court, “a restrictive interpretation of it, on pain of violating the autonomy of the will of the parties and their waiver of judicial protection”.

            This is what the Court has proclaimed in the very important judgement of 15 February 2021, which is the reason for this legal note.

            In recent years, the High Court of Justice of Madrid has resorted to the argument of “public order” in an extensive and “overwhelmed” manner to annul arbitral awards and “supplant the arbitral tribunal in its function of applying the law”, becoming “a second instance reviewing the facts and rights applied in the arbitral award, a control mechanism for the correct application of jurisprudence”.

            And this expansive and “overwhelmed” interpretation of public order as a tool for annulling arbitral awards by the High Court of Justice of Madrid had become a serious problem for the arbitral institution and for the confidence of the contracting parties when including arbitration agreements in their contracts.

            The principle that the arbitral award was the final and definitive solution to the dispute it was intended to resolve, except for procedural breaches or breaches of public order limited to those cases in which the arbitral award was arbitrary, illogical, absurd or irrational, was called into question and was a clear deterrent to contracting parties deciding to resolve their discrepancies through arbitration.

            Well then, the Constitutional Court, in a categorical and explicit manner, repeating what it had already stated in its judgement of June last year, confirms that the need for the arbitral award not to contravene public order cannot result in the judicial body replacing the arbitrator in his function of applying the law, nor can it become a second instance reviewing the facts and legal grounds applied in the arbitral award, nor a mechanism for controlling the correct application of case law.

            The principle of party autonomy prevails; and this means that when there is submission to arbitration, the parties have agreed that it should be through this channel that disputes between them are to be resolved, by means of the arbitrator’s decision, which can only be annulled through the strict channels that the Arbitration Act regulates; we insist, for procedural reasons or for violating public order in the restricted interpretation explained in the judgement we are commenting on; but in no case, by way of a second instance where the facts and legal grounds applied are re-evaluated once again.

            In short, Spanish arbitration is to be congratulated, and will be able to recover the momentum that caused it to lose, in part, the extensive interpretation of public order defended by some High Courts of Justice. From now on, the Courts will not be able to ignore the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, which is a breath of fresh air for Spanish arbitration.

            Zusammenfassung

            Bei der Beendigung von Handelsvertreter- und Vertriebsverträgen ist der Hauptkonfliktpunkt die Entschädigung für den Goodwill (Kundenstamm). Das spanische Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag sieht – ebenso wie die Richtlinie über Handelsvertreter – vor, dass der Handelsvertreter bei Beendigung des Vertrags unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen Anspruch auf einen Ausgleich hat. In Spanien kann dieser Ausgleich analog (wenn auch mit Einschränkungen und Abweichungen ) auch bei Vertriebsverträgen geltend gemacht werden.

            Für den Zuspruch eines  Kundenausgleichs ist es erforderlich, dass der Handelsvertreter (oder der Vertriebshändler: siehe diesen Beitrag, um mehr zu erfahren) neue Kunden gewonnen oder die Geschäfte mit bereits bestehenden Kunden erheblich ausgeweitet hat, sodass seine Tätigkeit dem Auftraggeber weiterhin erhebliche Vorteile bringen kann. Die Höhe der hierfür zu leistenden Ausgleichszahlung muss angemessen sein. All dies ist Voraussetzung für die Anerkennung des Ausgleichsanspruchs und dessen Höhe.

            Diese Begriffe (neue Kunden, erhebliche Ausweitung der Geschäfte mit bestehenden Kunden, wesentliche Vorteile, Angemessenheit der Ausgleichszahlung ) sind im Vorfeld schwer zu definieren, so dass es sich empfiehlt, die Klagen vor Gericht von Fall zu Fall auf Gutachten zu stützen, die von einem Anwalt überwacht werden.

            Zumindest in Spanien besteht die Tendenz, direkt den Höchstbetrag zu fordern, den die dort geltende Norm vorsieht (ein Jahresgehalt, das als Durchschnitt der letzten fünf Jahre berechnet wird), ohne eine weitere Analyse vorzunehmen. Bei einem derart pauschalen Vorgehen  besteht jedoch die Gefahr, dass ein Richter den Antrag als unbegründet zurückweist.

            Aus diesem Grund und aufgrund unserer Erfahrung halte ich es für angebracht, Hinweise zu geben, wie der Anspruch auf  Entschädigung und deren Höhe sich im Einzelfall begründen lässt.

            Der Vertreter/Händler, der Sachverständige und der Anwalt sollten Folgendes berücksichtigen:

            Prüfen Sie, wie hoch der Beitrag des Vertreters  war

            Entscheidend ist, ob  es bereits vor Vertragsbeginn Kunden gab und welches Umsatzvolumen mit ihnen erzielt wurde. Für die Anerkennung dieses Ausgleichs ist es entscheidend  ob der Vertreter die Zahl der Kunden erhöht hat oder mit bereits bestehenden Kunden arbeitet.

            Analyse des fortlaufenden Kundenwerts für den Auftraggeber

            Ihre Wiederkehr, ihre Loyalität (zum Auftraggeber und nicht zum Vermittler), die Abwanderungsrate (wie viele von ihnen werden nach  Vertragsabschluss beim Auftraggeber oder beim Vermittler bleiben) – nach all diesen Kriterien bemisst sich der Wert des durch den Vermittler gewonnenen Kundenstamms. In der Tat wird es schwierig sein, von einem „Kundenstamm“ zu sprechen, wenn es sich nur um sporadische, gelegentliche, nicht wiederkehrende oder nur wenige Kunden handelt, oder um Kunden, die in Zukunft dem Handelsvertreter und nicht dem Auftraggeber treu bleiben werden.

            Wie verhält sich der Vermittler bei Vertragsende?

            Die entscheidende Frage, die sich hier stellt: Kann er mit dem Auftraggeber konkurrieren oder gibt es Einschränkungen im Vertrag? Wenn der Handelsvertreter weiterhin dieselben Kunden betreuen kann, aber für einen anderen Auftraggeber, könnte die Entschädigung sehr wohl diskutiert werden.

            Ist die Vergütung angemessen?

            Untersuchen Sie hierfür, wie der Vertreter in der Vergangenheit gehandelt hat: Ob er seinen Verpflichtungen nachgekommen ist, wie er beiEinführung der Produkte oder der Markterschließung vorgegangen ist, wie sich diese Produkte oder Dienstleistungen in Zukunft entwickeln könnten usw.

            Wird der Vermittler seine Provisionen verlieren?

            Hier ist zu prüfen, ob der Vermittler  einer Ausschließlichkeitsbindung unterlag , ob es ihm leichter oder schwerer fiel im Anschluss, einen neuen Vertrag zu bekommen (z. B. aufgrund seines Alters, der Wirtschaftskrise, der Art der Produkte usw.) oder ob er eine neue Einnahmequelle hatte, wie sich die Umsätze in den letzten Jahren entwickelt haben (die für eine Entschädigung in Frage kommen) usw.

            Welches ist der gesetzliche Höchstwert, der nicht überschritten werden darf?

            Der Jahresdurchschnitt der während der Vertragslaufzeit (oder während eines Zeitraums von 5 Jahre, wenn der Vertrag länger dauerte) erhaltenen Beträge. Dazu gehören nicht nur die Provisionen, sondern auch etwaige Festbeträge, Boni, Preise usw. oder Margen im Falle von Vertriebshändlern.

            Und schließlich ist es zweckmäßig, alle analysierten Dokumente in den Bericht des Sachverständigen aufzunehmen

            Wenn dies nicht geschieht und sie nur erwähnt werden, könnte dies dazu führen, dass sie von einem Richter nicht berücksichtigt werden.

            Lesen Sie den praktischen Leitfaden für internationale Agenturvereinbarungen

            Weitere Informationen über die wichtigsten Merkmale eines Geschäftsbesorgungsvertrags in Spanien finden Sie in unserem Leitfaden.

            International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

            The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

            What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

            The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

            The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

            Verification of the identity of the company

            Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

            Request of financial  information

            What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

            Use the right contract

            What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

            Write down your agreements

            Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

            Follow your contract

            If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

            Document all transactions

            From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

            Has the debtor risen objections?

            Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

            Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

            In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

            Seek guarantees for your credits

            This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

            Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

            Check out our webinar on debt collection

            On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

            You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

            Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

            If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

            The Spanish government has recently approved two new rules on equal pay and equality plans which will come into force in January and April 2021 and affect all companies.

            1. Royal Decree 901/2020, of October 13, which regulates the equality plans and their registration

            An „equality plan“ is understood to be that ordered set of measures adopted after carrying out a situation diagnosis, aimed at achieving equal treatment and opportunities between women and men in the company, and eliminating discrimination based on sex.

            All companies that have 50 or more workers are obliged to draw up and apply an equality plan, its implementation being voluntary for other companies. In any case, equality plans, including previous diagnoses, must be subject to negotiation with the legal representation of the workers, in accordance with the procedure legally established for that purpose.

            Regarding the content of the plans, they must include, among others, definition of quantitative and qualitative objectives, description of the specific measures to be adopted, identification of means and resources, calendar of actions, monitoring and evaluation systems, etc. In addition, they must be subject to mandatory registration in a public registry.

            This new Royal Decree will enter into force on January 14, 2021.

            2. Royal Decree 902/2020, of October 13, of equal pay between women and men

            The purpose of this new Royal Decree is to implement specific measures that make it possible to enforce the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination between women and men in matters of remuneration.

            For this, the companies and collective agreements must integrate and apply the so-called „principle of remuneration transparency„, which applied to the different aspects that determine the remuneration of workers, allows obtaining sufficient and significant information on the value attributed to such remuneration.

            For the application of the aforementioned principle, the Royal Decree provides, fundamentally, two instruments:

            • remuneration registry: All companies must have an accessible remuneration registry for the legal representation of workers. It must include the average values ​​of salaries, salary supplements and extra-salary perceptions of the entire workforce (including managers and senior positions) disaggregated by sex.
            • remuneration audit: Those companies that draw up an equality plan must include a remuneration audit in it. Its purpose is to check if the company’s remuneration system complies with the effective application of the principle of equality, defining the needs to avoid, correct and prevent obstacles and difficulties that may exist.

            The measures contained in this new standard will come into effect on April 14, 2021.

            Javier Gaspar

            Rechtsgebiete

            • Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit
            • Vertrieb
            • Franchising
            • Rechtsstreitigkeiten
            • Sport
            Kontakt Javier

            Schreiben Sie an Javier





              Legalmondos Datenschutzbestimmungen lesen.
              This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

              Spain | Request for annulment of arbitration awards and Public Order

              30. August 2020

              • Spanien
              • Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit
              • Rechtsstreitigkeiten

              What a director of a company in Spain must do to resign? Is it enough to send a communication to the company stating his resignation? Or does he have to call a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute? Or does he even have to do something else?

              A recent Supreme Court ruling dated July 12, 2022 (STS 561/2022) has resolved an interesting case related to the resignation of a sole director of an LLC, confirming that resigning is not as simple as it may seem.

              The SC, indeed, established that a sole director, to resign, must not only prove that he validly called a Shareholders‘ Meeting for the appointment of a substitute, but he must also prove that he did everything necessary during the interim period (i.e.: the time between the resignation and the holding of the Meeting) to meet the needs of management and representation of the company and to avoid damages. Even, and this is the case discussed in the STS, requiring the presence of a notary at the Meeting, if so required by shareholders representing at least 5% of the share capital.

              The case recently ruled by the SC involved a company with two shareholders: the majority partner with 75% of the capital, and the minority partner (and sole administrator) with 25%. The sole administrator resigned and called a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute. The majority shareholder required the presence of a Notary at the Meeting; but the resigning director refused, stating that – following his resignation – he had no obligation regarding the Meeting.

              On the day of the Meeting, the majority shareholder was present, but neither the resigning administrator nor the Notary were, therefore the Shareholder’s Meeting was not held.

              The administrator filed the deed of resignation with the Commercial Registry and the majority shareholder – at the same time – filed a document denouncing that the resigning administrator had not requested the presence of a Notary at the Meeting, despite having been requested to do so.

              Thereafter, several resolutions with very different contents were issued. The Commercial Registrar suspended the registration of the resignation, but the „Dirección General del Notariado y de los Registros“ (General Directorate of Notaries and Registries) decided that the resignation should be registered. The Commercial Court of Barcelona confirmed this last decision, and so did the Provincial Court. But the Supreme Court finally gave reason to the Mercantile Registrar.

              The rulings in favor of the registration of the resignation argued, firstly, that the outgoing administrator exhausted his responsibilities by convening the Shareholder’s Meeting; and secondly, that the Registrar must examine only if a document may be entered in the register, without considering the „extra-registry reality“, such as the document presented by the majority shareholder complaining about the administrator’s actions.

              The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the absence of a Notary, validly requested by the majority shareholder, rendered ineffective all the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. Based on this, the Supreme Court considered it „logical“ that in such a case the administrator should not only call the Shareholder’s Meeting but also require the presence of a Notary, in order to grant the validity of the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. With respect to the second controversial issue, the Supreme Court ruled that the Registrar, although exceptionally, can take into account certain circumstances or facts of which he has „registry evidence“, even if they do not appear by virtue of documents presented for their inscription, as long as they are related to the „inscribable“ document.

              In short, this interesting case shows that resigning as an administrator is not an easy activity. In general, although there is no specific provision on the subject in the Spanish system, the resigning administrator must not only call a Shareholder’s Meeting, but also remain administrator on an interim basis and attend to his obligations until the Shareholder’s Meeting is held; then, if the Shareholder’s Meeting is not held due to the non-attendance of the shareholders or if the shareholders do not appoint a substitute administrator, nothing more is required from the resigning administrator.

              Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Obersten Gerichtshofs Spaniens kann ein Handelsvertreter Anspruch auf Ausgleichszahlungen für die Kundschaft haben, wenn Artikel 28 des Handelsvertretergesetzes analog angewendet wird (die „inspirierende Idee„). Dieser Ausgleich wird für den Handelsvertreter auf der Grundlage der in den letzten fünf Jahren erhaltenen Vergütungen berechnet.

              In einem Vertriebsvertrag gibt es jedoch keine „Vergütungen“, wie sie der Handelsvertreter erhält (Provisionen, Festbeträge oder andere), sondern „Handelsspannen“ (Differenzen zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis). Es stellt sich also die Frage, welche Größenordnung für die Kundenvergütung in einem Vertriebsvertrag in Betracht zu ziehen ist: Entweder die „Bruttomarge“ (die bereits erwähnte Differenz zwischen dem Einkaufs- und dem Wiederverkaufspreis) oder die „Nettomarge“ (dieselbe Differenz, aber abzüglich anderer Ausgaben und Steuern, die dem Vertriebshändler entstanden sind).

              Die bisherige Schlussfolgerung schien darin zu bestehen, die Vergütung des Vertriebshändlers aus seinen „Bruttomargen“ zu berechnen, da dies eine Größe ist, die eher mit der „Vergütung“ des Handelsvertreters vergleichbar ist: Andere Ausgaben und Steuern des Vertriebshändlers konnten nicht in der gleichen Weise abgezogen werden wie bei einem Handelsvertretervertrag, bei dem weder Ausgaben noch Steuern abgezogen wurden.

              Der Oberste Gerichtshof (17. November 1999) hatte darauf hingewiesen, dass es für die Berechnung der Entschädigung für die Kunden „angemessener ist, sie als Bruttobeitrag zu betrachten, da der Vertreter damit alle Auslagen seiner kommerziellen Organisation decken muss„. Außerdem stellen die „erzielten Einkünfte“ „keine Vergütung im gleichen Sinne dar“ (21. Oktober 2008), da solche „Leistungen“ „zum internen Bereich der eigenen Organisation des Vertreters gehören“ (12. März 2012).

              Kürzlich wurde jedoch in einem Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 1. März 2017 (bestätigt durch ein weiteres Urteil vom 19. Mai 2017) die Auffassung vertreten, dass die Bestimmung der Höhe der Kundenentschädigung in einem Vertriebsvertrag nicht auf der Grundlage der vom Vertriebshändler erzielten „Bruttomargen“ erfolgen kann, sondern auf der Grundlage der „Nettomarge“. Um zu dieser Schlussfolgerung zu gelangen, verweist das Gericht auf ein Urteil desselben Gerichts aus dem Jahr 2016 sowie auf weitere Urteile aus den Jahren 2010 und 2007.

              Bedeutet dies eine Änderung der Rechtsprechung? Meiner Meinung nach ist diese Lesart des Obersten Gerichtshofs nicht richtig. Lassen Sie uns sehen, warum.

              Im Urteil vom März 2017 wird der Disjunktiv zwischen Brutto- und Nettomarge im zweiten Rechtsgrund erwähnt und bezieht sich auf das Urteil von 2016.

              In diesem Urteil aus dem Jahr 2016 heißt es, dass in einem anderen Urteil aus dem Jahr 2010 zwar nicht entschieden wurde, ob die Berechnung auf der Grundlage der Brutto- oder der Nettomarge erfolgen muss, in einem früheren Urteil aus dem Jahr 2007 jedoch eingeräumt wurde, dass der vom Händler erzielte Nettogewinn (Gewinn nach Abzug von Kosten und Steuern) und nicht die Marge, d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis, mit der Vergütung des Vertreters vergleichbar ist.

              Meines Erachtens bezieht sich der Oberste Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil vom März 2017 in letzter Instanz auf das Urteil 296/2007, was dort nicht gesagt wurde. Im Jahr 2007 bezifferte der Oberste Gerichtshof nicht die Entschädigung der Kundschaft, sondern den Schadenersatz. Genauer gesagt, und nach der Feststellung, dass „die Entschädigung der Kunden in der Klage klar und eindeutig gefordert werden muss„, kam der Gerichtshof zu dem Schluss, dass die Kammer „entscheiden muss, was den Bedingungen entspricht, unter denen die Debatte … in der ursprünglichen Klage geführt wurde. Und da … das Interesse an einer Entschädigung hauptsächlich auf der Dauer der Beziehung beruhte … besteht die Lösung, die der Rechtsprechung dieses Gerichtshofs besser entspricht, darin, als Entschädigung einen Betrag festzusetzen, der dem Nettonutzen entspricht, der durch den Vertrieb der Produkte … in dem Jahr unmittelbar vor der Beendigung des Vertrags erzielt wurde“. In diesem Urteil von 2007 entschied der Gerichtshof also nicht über die Entschädigung der Kunden, sondern über den Schadenersatz.

              Auf diese Weise wurde die Schlussfolgerung aus dem Jahr 2007, den Schadensersatz auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen zu berechnen, ohne weitere Analyse auf das Jahr 2016 übertragen, allerdings für die Berechnung der Kundenentschädigung. Dieses Kriterium wird nun in den Urteilen des Jahres 2017 fast automatisch wieder aufgegriffen.

              Meines Erachtens sollte jedoch trotz der Änderung der Rechtsprechung die These vorherrschen, dass bei der analogen Anwendung des Kundenausgleichs in Vertriebsverträgen die Größe, die der „Vergütung“ des Vertreters entspricht, die „Bruttomarge“ ist, die der Vertriebshändler erzielt, und nicht seine „Nettomarge“: Es macht nicht viel Sinn, dass, wenn die Analogie angewandt wird, um den Kundenausgleich an einen Vertriebshändler anzuerkennen, dieser von seinen Bruttomargenbeträgen abgezogen wird, um seine Marge oder seinen Nettogewinn zu erreichen. Der Handelsvertreter hat auch seine Ausgaben und zahlt auch seine Steuern ausgehend von seinen „Vergütungen“, und nichts in der Richtlinie 86/653/EWG oder im Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag erlaubt es, solche Beträge abzuziehen, um seine Kundenvergütung zu berechnen. Meiner Meinung nach sollten daher die Vertriebshändler gleichgestellt werden: Die Größen, die verglichen werden könnten, sollten die (Brutto-)Vergütungen des Vertreters mit den (Brutto-)Margen des Vertriebshändlers sein (d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis).

              Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die Urteile vom 1. März und 19. Mai 2017 auf einem meines Erachtens früheren Irrtum beharren und zusätzliche Verwirrung in einer Frage stiften, die bereits erörtert wurde: Die analoge Anwendung der Kundenentschädigung auf die Vertriebsverträge und die Berechnungsmethode.

              Aktualisierungsmitteilung (27. Januar 2020)

              In einem kürzlich ergangenen Beschluss („Auto“) des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 20. November 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 über die Unzulässigkeit eines Rechtsmittels) hatte der Gerichtshof Gelegenheit, auf diese Frage zurückzukommen und die Kriterien der letzten Rechtsprechung zu bestätigen: Die  in den Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigende Größe für die Anwendung der Analogie und die Berechnung der Goodwill-Entschädigung sind die „Nettomargen“ .

              In diesem Verfahren legte ein Vertriebsunternehmen Berufung gegen die Entscheidung des Landgerichts Barcelona ein, das den Ausgleich auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen und nicht der Bruttomargen anerkannte. Der Händler beantragte beim Obersten Gerichtshof die Aufhebung dieses Urteils mit der Begründung, dass es nach der neuesten Rechtsprechung ergangen sei, die nach Ansicht des Rechtsmittelführers fehlerhaft sei.

              Der Oberste Gerichtshof scheint jedoch zu bestätigen, dass im Gegensatz zu der These, die ich oben in diesem Beitrag vertreten habe, „kein angeblicher Fehler in der jüngsten Rechtsprechung bei der analogen Auslegung von Art. 28.3 des Gesetzes über den Handelsvertreter für den Vertriebsvertrag und somit auch nicht die Notwendigkeit besteht, die jüngste Rechtsprechung zu diesem Thema zu überprüfen“. Wenn der Oberste Gerichtshof seine jüngste Rechtsprechung nicht überprüft und das Urteil, in dem die Nettomargen angewandt wurden, für akzeptabel hält, müssen wir folglich davon ausgehen, dass die Größenordnung, die bei der Entschädigung der Kundschaft in Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigen ist, die Nettomargen und nicht die Bruttomargen sind.

              Mit dieser Entscheidung scheint  das Gericht also die Diskussion zu beenden, die jedoch meiner Meinung nach weiterhin zu zahlreichen Diskussionen führen wird.

              Artists (actors, singers) and sportsmen, non-residents in Spanish territory, who occasionally carry out their artistic or sporting activities in Spain, are usually unaware of their tax obligations before the Spanish Tax Authorities.

              In this respect, we would like to point out that, in the last year, the inspection activity of the Spanish Tax Administration has increased considerably in relation to these taxpayers. This is a consequence of the fact that the Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan of the State Agency issued by the Spanish Tax Administration (AEAT) expressly included the intensification of the control of the income obtained by non-resident artists and sportsmen who act or develop an activity in Spain within the year 2020.

              Spanish legislation, which regulates the Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR), establishes literally that: it is considered income obtained in Spanish territory, among others, that which derives, directly or indirectly, from the personal performance in Spanish territory of artists and sportsmen, and that which derives from any other activity related to such performance, even if it is received by a person or entity other than the artist or sportsman.

              This means that the artist or sportsman who performs an activity in Spain for which he or she obtains income, is subject to tax obligations and to the payment of taxes in Spain and must declare not only the income directly related to his or her performance but also other income linked to his or her professional performance, such as sponsorships, image rights, etc…

              The above is understood regardless of whether the actual recipient of the income derived from the athlete’s or artist’s performance is the artist or athlete himself or herself, a company in which he or she has any interest, or a third individual or legal entity with no apparent connection to the athlete or artist.

              Therefore, even if the company that pays such income is a non-resident in Spanish territory and the payment takes place physically outside such territory, any income obtained in Spain will be considered subject to tax (19% for EU residents and 24% for non-EU residents) when it is obtained on account of the artistic or sporting activity carried out in the Spanish territory.

              Most of the double taxation international treaties that Spain has signed with other countries allow the country in which the activity of the artist or athlete takes place to tax the income generated from such activity. All these agreements also establish mechanisms to avoid double taxation, but this possibility is considerably complicated when, as in many cases, the artist or sportsman receives his income through a company incorporated in his country of residence or in a third country instead of receiving it directly as an individual.

              Often the contracts signed by artists and sportsmen are signed by companies related to them -usually domiciled in their country of residence-, this situation is giving rise to serious difficulties for them to deduct in their country of residence (and within the scope of Corporate Income Tax) the tax paid in Spain as an individual.

              We therefore want to highlight (i) the existence of important tax obligations that affects artists and sportsmen who are not resident in Spanish territory for the activities they carry out in Spain and, furthermore, (ii) the need for them to receive adequate prior advice on the tax consequences of their activity and, consequently, on the best vehicle to formalize their contracting.

              Summary

              One of the issues when setting up a (subsidiary) company in Spain which creates more practical difficulties is the question of powers of attorney: What is a power of attorney, are they necessary and how do they work? In Spain this question is of practical relevance and its operation does not always coincide with what happens in other countries. In this commentary, we will give you some ideas on how to act with these powers of attorney when setting up a company.

              What is a power of attorney? A power of attorney allows a person (attorney-in-fact or representative) to act on behalf of a company. The attorney-in-fact may, for example, sign a contract on behalf of a company if that company has given him or her the power (authority) to do so. For example, borrowing money from a bank.

              To do this the company will have two types of representatives: an „organic representative“ (the directors) and „voluntary representatives“ (attorneys-in-fact).

              First, a company must have at least one director

              The director(s) is the „organic representative“. In other words, he/she is an organ (management body) of the company, represents it and can contract on its behalf.

              This „organ“ may be a single person (a single director), it may be several persons acting individually or jointly, or it may be a board of directors („collegial body“). The power of representation resides in the „organ“. It is the body that represents the company and not necessarily its members.

              The first task, therefore, is to decide on the structure of the body, and this is taken when the company is incorporated, although it can be changed later. In this way, the sole director will have all the powers to represent the company, the individual directors will also have them if they are „joint and several” or will have to act jointly if they are „joint“ directors, and the board will also have them, but as a body (not each director individually).

              This last remark (the powers are held by the body and not necessarily by its members) is important when the company is managed by a board of directors. The fact that there is a board of directors does not imply that each member has the powers to represent the company, but that they are held by the body as a whole. The board may, however, delegate them. When the board delegates the powers to one of its directors (it is possible, but not obligatory to appoint one), the latter becomes a „managing director“ (Consejero Delegado). This director may then represent the company in all matters delegated to him/her.

              Secondly, in addition to the directors, the company may have (not compulsory) other „proxies“ (empowered person)

              These are the „voluntary representatives“, i.e. appointed „at the will“ of the company.

              A proxy is someone to whom the company gives powers to represent it. Powers to do certain things.

              As we said at the beginning, in Spain, acting by proxy is quite strict, so that a company cannot normally be represented by anyone who does not have the power to do so. For example, if the company authorises (empowers) a person only to sign banking contracts, he/she will not be able to sign contracts with employees.

              The powers granted to a person must therefore be express. If a person is authorised to open a bank account, he/she is not supposed to be able to borrow money. And in this way, the powers serve as a framework for action: what the attorney-in-fact can do and what the limits are. And sometimes these limits come from the power itself (opening a bank account does not authorise borrowing) or can be quantitative (borrowing, but only up to 100,000 euros), or temporary (borrowing, but until 31 December 2025) or even requiring more than one person to act (borrowing, but co-signing with person „Z“). And, of course, a combination of all of them: attorney-in-fact „X“ can take out loans by signing with attorney-in-fact „W“ up to 100,000 euros, and with attorney-in-fact „Z“ up to 1,000,000 euros.

              When setting up a company in Spain, it is therefore highly advisable to think about how the powers are to be granted, especially if the administrative body does not reside in our country. As we have seen from experience, it is not uncommon to set up a company by appointing an administrator resident abroad without appointing a proxy in Spain. This is legally valid, but, in a way, it hinders the functioning of the company: the only person to sign contracts and represent the company resides abroad, which, from a practical point of view, will be a major disadvantage.

              The procedure for empowering a person is simple. All it takes is a decision of the administrative body, formalisation before a notary and registration in the Commercial Register. In this way, anyone can verify that the person appointed can represent the company in that particular act. This does require a person of trust to be found (an employee, a resident partner, a third party), but the risk can be modulated by the limitation possibilities described above.

              In conclusion

              When setting up a company in Spain, if the administrator will not be resident in Spain, consider how to organise the powers of attorney, whom to empower and how to limit, if necessary, their powers.

              And the powers of attorney that you will need most and most urgently are:

              • (a) those that will allow you to contract with banks (opening and managing bank accounts),
              • (b) those relating to employees (hiring, registration with social security, payment of salaries),
              • (c) those for supply contracts (electricity, water, telephone) and other general contracts (rental, vehicles, distribution contracts); and
              • (d) managing the company’s electronic signature (relations with public administrations, tax payments).

              Failure to take this decision in a timely manner could delay or hinder the activity being started.

              And if in doubt, it is best to consult a local lawyer.

              Arbitration is a procedure for resolving disputes between parties that is very successful in the Anglo-Saxon legal system. But much less in our country.

              Arbitration has advantages and disadvantages; it is more expensive than the Courts, but it is much quicker; and speed is essential for justice to be such.

              Typically, an arbitration lasts six months plus a couple of months for the appointment of the arbitrator; in total, a dispute, however important and difficult it may be, can be definitively resolved in eight months.

              To compare with the Courts, in Spain today it takes on average eighteen months to obtain a judgement at first instance and another eighteen months for an appeal; without considering the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

              The cornerstone on which arbitration rests is that the arbitral award is final and definitive and cannot be reviewed or appealed; this statement has certain exceptions, mainly of a formal or procedural nature: basically, the legality of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the matter and the procedural regularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. These defects can be attacked by means of an action for annulment, which is heard by the ordinary courts.

              But in addition to the possible “formal” defects, the action for annulment can be based on the allegation of a breach of “public order”, which the Constitutional Court has defined and outlined as “those public and private, political, moral and economic legal principles which are absolutely obligatory for the preservation of society in a given people and at a given time”.

              As this definition of “public order” is undoubtedly broad and unspecific, the use of the violation of public order as a tool for declaring the nullity of arbitral awards by the ordinary courts has produced an “overflow” effect that has required, in the words of the Constitutional Court, “a restrictive interpretation of it, on pain of violating the autonomy of the will of the parties and their waiver of judicial protection”.

              This is what the Court has proclaimed in the very important judgement of 15 February 2021, which is the reason for this legal note.

              In recent years, the High Court of Justice of Madrid has resorted to the argument of “public order” in an extensive and “overwhelmed” manner to annul arbitral awards and “supplant the arbitral tribunal in its function of applying the law”, becoming “a second instance reviewing the facts and rights applied in the arbitral award, a control mechanism for the correct application of jurisprudence”.

              And this expansive and “overwhelmed” interpretation of public order as a tool for annulling arbitral awards by the High Court of Justice of Madrid had become a serious problem for the arbitral institution and for the confidence of the contracting parties when including arbitration agreements in their contracts.

              The principle that the arbitral award was the final and definitive solution to the dispute it was intended to resolve, except for procedural breaches or breaches of public order limited to those cases in which the arbitral award was arbitrary, illogical, absurd or irrational, was called into question and was a clear deterrent to contracting parties deciding to resolve their discrepancies through arbitration.

              Well then, the Constitutional Court, in a categorical and explicit manner, repeating what it had already stated in its judgement of June last year, confirms that the need for the arbitral award not to contravene public order cannot result in the judicial body replacing the arbitrator in his function of applying the law, nor can it become a second instance reviewing the facts and legal grounds applied in the arbitral award, nor a mechanism for controlling the correct application of case law.

              The principle of party autonomy prevails; and this means that when there is submission to arbitration, the parties have agreed that it should be through this channel that disputes between them are to be resolved, by means of the arbitrator’s decision, which can only be annulled through the strict channels that the Arbitration Act regulates; we insist, for procedural reasons or for violating public order in the restricted interpretation explained in the judgement we are commenting on; but in no case, by way of a second instance where the facts and legal grounds applied are re-evaluated once again.

              In short, Spanish arbitration is to be congratulated, and will be able to recover the momentum that caused it to lose, in part, the extensive interpretation of public order defended by some High Courts of Justice. From now on, the Courts will not be able to ignore the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, which is a breath of fresh air for Spanish arbitration.

              Zusammenfassung

              Bei der Beendigung von Handelsvertreter- und Vertriebsverträgen ist der Hauptkonfliktpunkt die Entschädigung für den Goodwill (Kundenstamm). Das spanische Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag sieht – ebenso wie die Richtlinie über Handelsvertreter – vor, dass der Handelsvertreter bei Beendigung des Vertrags unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen Anspruch auf einen Ausgleich hat. In Spanien kann dieser Ausgleich analog (wenn auch mit Einschränkungen und Abweichungen ) auch bei Vertriebsverträgen geltend gemacht werden.

              Für den Zuspruch eines  Kundenausgleichs ist es erforderlich, dass der Handelsvertreter (oder der Vertriebshändler: siehe diesen Beitrag, um mehr zu erfahren) neue Kunden gewonnen oder die Geschäfte mit bereits bestehenden Kunden erheblich ausgeweitet hat, sodass seine Tätigkeit dem Auftraggeber weiterhin erhebliche Vorteile bringen kann. Die Höhe der hierfür zu leistenden Ausgleichszahlung muss angemessen sein. All dies ist Voraussetzung für die Anerkennung des Ausgleichsanspruchs und dessen Höhe.

              Diese Begriffe (neue Kunden, erhebliche Ausweitung der Geschäfte mit bestehenden Kunden, wesentliche Vorteile, Angemessenheit der Ausgleichszahlung ) sind im Vorfeld schwer zu definieren, so dass es sich empfiehlt, die Klagen vor Gericht von Fall zu Fall auf Gutachten zu stützen, die von einem Anwalt überwacht werden.

              Zumindest in Spanien besteht die Tendenz, direkt den Höchstbetrag zu fordern, den die dort geltende Norm vorsieht (ein Jahresgehalt, das als Durchschnitt der letzten fünf Jahre berechnet wird), ohne eine weitere Analyse vorzunehmen. Bei einem derart pauschalen Vorgehen  besteht jedoch die Gefahr, dass ein Richter den Antrag als unbegründet zurückweist.

              Aus diesem Grund und aufgrund unserer Erfahrung halte ich es für angebracht, Hinweise zu geben, wie der Anspruch auf  Entschädigung und deren Höhe sich im Einzelfall begründen lässt.

              Der Vertreter/Händler, der Sachverständige und der Anwalt sollten Folgendes berücksichtigen:

              Prüfen Sie, wie hoch der Beitrag des Vertreters  war

              Entscheidend ist, ob  es bereits vor Vertragsbeginn Kunden gab und welches Umsatzvolumen mit ihnen erzielt wurde. Für die Anerkennung dieses Ausgleichs ist es entscheidend  ob der Vertreter die Zahl der Kunden erhöht hat oder mit bereits bestehenden Kunden arbeitet.

              Analyse des fortlaufenden Kundenwerts für den Auftraggeber

              Ihre Wiederkehr, ihre Loyalität (zum Auftraggeber und nicht zum Vermittler), die Abwanderungsrate (wie viele von ihnen werden nach  Vertragsabschluss beim Auftraggeber oder beim Vermittler bleiben) – nach all diesen Kriterien bemisst sich der Wert des durch den Vermittler gewonnenen Kundenstamms. In der Tat wird es schwierig sein, von einem „Kundenstamm“ zu sprechen, wenn es sich nur um sporadische, gelegentliche, nicht wiederkehrende oder nur wenige Kunden handelt, oder um Kunden, die in Zukunft dem Handelsvertreter und nicht dem Auftraggeber treu bleiben werden.

              Wie verhält sich der Vermittler bei Vertragsende?

              Die entscheidende Frage, die sich hier stellt: Kann er mit dem Auftraggeber konkurrieren oder gibt es Einschränkungen im Vertrag? Wenn der Handelsvertreter weiterhin dieselben Kunden betreuen kann, aber für einen anderen Auftraggeber, könnte die Entschädigung sehr wohl diskutiert werden.

              Ist die Vergütung angemessen?

              Untersuchen Sie hierfür, wie der Vertreter in der Vergangenheit gehandelt hat: Ob er seinen Verpflichtungen nachgekommen ist, wie er beiEinführung der Produkte oder der Markterschließung vorgegangen ist, wie sich diese Produkte oder Dienstleistungen in Zukunft entwickeln könnten usw.

              Wird der Vermittler seine Provisionen verlieren?

              Hier ist zu prüfen, ob der Vermittler  einer Ausschließlichkeitsbindung unterlag , ob es ihm leichter oder schwerer fiel im Anschluss, einen neuen Vertrag zu bekommen (z. B. aufgrund seines Alters, der Wirtschaftskrise, der Art der Produkte usw.) oder ob er eine neue Einnahmequelle hatte, wie sich die Umsätze in den letzten Jahren entwickelt haben (die für eine Entschädigung in Frage kommen) usw.

              Welches ist der gesetzliche Höchstwert, der nicht überschritten werden darf?

              Der Jahresdurchschnitt der während der Vertragslaufzeit (oder während eines Zeitraums von 5 Jahre, wenn der Vertrag länger dauerte) erhaltenen Beträge. Dazu gehören nicht nur die Provisionen, sondern auch etwaige Festbeträge, Boni, Preise usw. oder Margen im Falle von Vertriebshändlern.

              Und schließlich ist es zweckmäßig, alle analysierten Dokumente in den Bericht des Sachverständigen aufzunehmen

              Wenn dies nicht geschieht und sie nur erwähnt werden, könnte dies dazu führen, dass sie von einem Richter nicht berücksichtigt werden.

              Lesen Sie den praktischen Leitfaden für internationale Agenturvereinbarungen

              Weitere Informationen über die wichtigsten Merkmale eines Geschäftsbesorgungsvertrags in Spanien finden Sie in unserem Leitfaden.

              International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

              The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

              What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

              The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

              The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

              Verification of the identity of the company

              Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

              Request of financial  information

              What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

              Use the right contract

              What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

              Write down your agreements

              Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

              Follow your contract

              If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

              Document all transactions

              From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

              Has the debtor risen objections?

              Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

              Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

              In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

              Seek guarantees for your credits

              This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

              Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

              Check out our webinar on debt collection

              On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

              You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

              Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

              If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

              The Spanish government has recently approved two new rules on equal pay and equality plans which will come into force in January and April 2021 and affect all companies.

              1. Royal Decree 901/2020, of October 13, which regulates the equality plans and their registration

              An „equality plan“ is understood to be that ordered set of measures adopted after carrying out a situation diagnosis, aimed at achieving equal treatment and opportunities between women and men in the company, and eliminating discrimination based on sex.

              All companies that have 50 or more workers are obliged to draw up and apply an equality plan, its implementation being voluntary for other companies. In any case, equality plans, including previous diagnoses, must be subject to negotiation with the legal representation of the workers, in accordance with the procedure legally established for that purpose.

              Regarding the content of the plans, they must include, among others, definition of quantitative and qualitative objectives, description of the specific measures to be adopted, identification of means and resources, calendar of actions, monitoring and evaluation systems, etc. In addition, they must be subject to mandatory registration in a public registry.

              This new Royal Decree will enter into force on January 14, 2021.

              2. Royal Decree 902/2020, of October 13, of equal pay between women and men

              The purpose of this new Royal Decree is to implement specific measures that make it possible to enforce the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination between women and men in matters of remuneration.

              For this, the companies and collective agreements must integrate and apply the so-called „principle of remuneration transparency„, which applied to the different aspects that determine the remuneration of workers, allows obtaining sufficient and significant information on the value attributed to such remuneration.

              For the application of the aforementioned principle, the Royal Decree provides, fundamentally, two instruments:

              • remuneration registry: All companies must have an accessible remuneration registry for the legal representation of workers. It must include the average values ​​of salaries, salary supplements and extra-salary perceptions of the entire workforce (including managers and senior positions) disaggregated by sex.
              • remuneration audit: Those companies that draw up an equality plan must include a remuneration audit in it. Its purpose is to check if the company’s remuneration system complies with the effective application of the principle of equality, defining the needs to avoid, correct and prevent obstacles and difficulties that may exist.

              The measures contained in this new standard will come into effect on April 14, 2021.

              Javier Gaspar

              Rechtsgebiete

              • Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit
              • Vertrieb
              • Franchising
              • Rechtsstreitigkeiten
              • Sport
              Kontakt Javier

              Schreiben Sie an Javier





                Legalmondos Datenschutzbestimmungen lesen.
                This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

                The importance of Mediation in Distribution Contracts

                14. Juli 2020

                • Spanien
                • Alternative Streitbeilegung
                • Vertrieb

                What a director of a company in Spain must do to resign? Is it enough to send a communication to the company stating his resignation? Or does he have to call a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute? Or does he even have to do something else?

                A recent Supreme Court ruling dated July 12, 2022 (STS 561/2022) has resolved an interesting case related to the resignation of a sole director of an LLC, confirming that resigning is not as simple as it may seem.

                The SC, indeed, established that a sole director, to resign, must not only prove that he validly called a Shareholders‘ Meeting for the appointment of a substitute, but he must also prove that he did everything necessary during the interim period (i.e.: the time between the resignation and the holding of the Meeting) to meet the needs of management and representation of the company and to avoid damages. Even, and this is the case discussed in the STS, requiring the presence of a notary at the Meeting, if so required by shareholders representing at least 5% of the share capital.

                The case recently ruled by the SC involved a company with two shareholders: the majority partner with 75% of the capital, and the minority partner (and sole administrator) with 25%. The sole administrator resigned and called a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute. The majority shareholder required the presence of a Notary at the Meeting; but the resigning director refused, stating that – following his resignation – he had no obligation regarding the Meeting.

                On the day of the Meeting, the majority shareholder was present, but neither the resigning administrator nor the Notary were, therefore the Shareholder’s Meeting was not held.

                The administrator filed the deed of resignation with the Commercial Registry and the majority shareholder – at the same time – filed a document denouncing that the resigning administrator had not requested the presence of a Notary at the Meeting, despite having been requested to do so.

                Thereafter, several resolutions with very different contents were issued. The Commercial Registrar suspended the registration of the resignation, but the „Dirección General del Notariado y de los Registros“ (General Directorate of Notaries and Registries) decided that the resignation should be registered. The Commercial Court of Barcelona confirmed this last decision, and so did the Provincial Court. But the Supreme Court finally gave reason to the Mercantile Registrar.

                The rulings in favor of the registration of the resignation argued, firstly, that the outgoing administrator exhausted his responsibilities by convening the Shareholder’s Meeting; and secondly, that the Registrar must examine only if a document may be entered in the register, without considering the „extra-registry reality“, such as the document presented by the majority shareholder complaining about the administrator’s actions.

                The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the absence of a Notary, validly requested by the majority shareholder, rendered ineffective all the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. Based on this, the Supreme Court considered it „logical“ that in such a case the administrator should not only call the Shareholder’s Meeting but also require the presence of a Notary, in order to grant the validity of the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. With respect to the second controversial issue, the Supreme Court ruled that the Registrar, although exceptionally, can take into account certain circumstances or facts of which he has „registry evidence“, even if they do not appear by virtue of documents presented for their inscription, as long as they are related to the „inscribable“ document.

                In short, this interesting case shows that resigning as an administrator is not an easy activity. In general, although there is no specific provision on the subject in the Spanish system, the resigning administrator must not only call a Shareholder’s Meeting, but also remain administrator on an interim basis and attend to his obligations until the Shareholder’s Meeting is held; then, if the Shareholder’s Meeting is not held due to the non-attendance of the shareholders or if the shareholders do not appoint a substitute administrator, nothing more is required from the resigning administrator.

                Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Obersten Gerichtshofs Spaniens kann ein Handelsvertreter Anspruch auf Ausgleichszahlungen für die Kundschaft haben, wenn Artikel 28 des Handelsvertretergesetzes analog angewendet wird (die „inspirierende Idee„). Dieser Ausgleich wird für den Handelsvertreter auf der Grundlage der in den letzten fünf Jahren erhaltenen Vergütungen berechnet.

                In einem Vertriebsvertrag gibt es jedoch keine „Vergütungen“, wie sie der Handelsvertreter erhält (Provisionen, Festbeträge oder andere), sondern „Handelsspannen“ (Differenzen zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis). Es stellt sich also die Frage, welche Größenordnung für die Kundenvergütung in einem Vertriebsvertrag in Betracht zu ziehen ist: Entweder die „Bruttomarge“ (die bereits erwähnte Differenz zwischen dem Einkaufs- und dem Wiederverkaufspreis) oder die „Nettomarge“ (dieselbe Differenz, aber abzüglich anderer Ausgaben und Steuern, die dem Vertriebshändler entstanden sind).

                Die bisherige Schlussfolgerung schien darin zu bestehen, die Vergütung des Vertriebshändlers aus seinen „Bruttomargen“ zu berechnen, da dies eine Größe ist, die eher mit der „Vergütung“ des Handelsvertreters vergleichbar ist: Andere Ausgaben und Steuern des Vertriebshändlers konnten nicht in der gleichen Weise abgezogen werden wie bei einem Handelsvertretervertrag, bei dem weder Ausgaben noch Steuern abgezogen wurden.

                Der Oberste Gerichtshof (17. November 1999) hatte darauf hingewiesen, dass es für die Berechnung der Entschädigung für die Kunden „angemessener ist, sie als Bruttobeitrag zu betrachten, da der Vertreter damit alle Auslagen seiner kommerziellen Organisation decken muss„. Außerdem stellen die „erzielten Einkünfte“ „keine Vergütung im gleichen Sinne dar“ (21. Oktober 2008), da solche „Leistungen“ „zum internen Bereich der eigenen Organisation des Vertreters gehören“ (12. März 2012).

                Kürzlich wurde jedoch in einem Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 1. März 2017 (bestätigt durch ein weiteres Urteil vom 19. Mai 2017) die Auffassung vertreten, dass die Bestimmung der Höhe der Kundenentschädigung in einem Vertriebsvertrag nicht auf der Grundlage der vom Vertriebshändler erzielten „Bruttomargen“ erfolgen kann, sondern auf der Grundlage der „Nettomarge“. Um zu dieser Schlussfolgerung zu gelangen, verweist das Gericht auf ein Urteil desselben Gerichts aus dem Jahr 2016 sowie auf weitere Urteile aus den Jahren 2010 und 2007.

                Bedeutet dies eine Änderung der Rechtsprechung? Meiner Meinung nach ist diese Lesart des Obersten Gerichtshofs nicht richtig. Lassen Sie uns sehen, warum.

                Im Urteil vom März 2017 wird der Disjunktiv zwischen Brutto- und Nettomarge im zweiten Rechtsgrund erwähnt und bezieht sich auf das Urteil von 2016.

                In diesem Urteil aus dem Jahr 2016 heißt es, dass in einem anderen Urteil aus dem Jahr 2010 zwar nicht entschieden wurde, ob die Berechnung auf der Grundlage der Brutto- oder der Nettomarge erfolgen muss, in einem früheren Urteil aus dem Jahr 2007 jedoch eingeräumt wurde, dass der vom Händler erzielte Nettogewinn (Gewinn nach Abzug von Kosten und Steuern) und nicht die Marge, d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis, mit der Vergütung des Vertreters vergleichbar ist.

                Meines Erachtens bezieht sich der Oberste Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil vom März 2017 in letzter Instanz auf das Urteil 296/2007, was dort nicht gesagt wurde. Im Jahr 2007 bezifferte der Oberste Gerichtshof nicht die Entschädigung der Kundschaft, sondern den Schadenersatz. Genauer gesagt, und nach der Feststellung, dass „die Entschädigung der Kunden in der Klage klar und eindeutig gefordert werden muss„, kam der Gerichtshof zu dem Schluss, dass die Kammer „entscheiden muss, was den Bedingungen entspricht, unter denen die Debatte … in der ursprünglichen Klage geführt wurde. Und da … das Interesse an einer Entschädigung hauptsächlich auf der Dauer der Beziehung beruhte … besteht die Lösung, die der Rechtsprechung dieses Gerichtshofs besser entspricht, darin, als Entschädigung einen Betrag festzusetzen, der dem Nettonutzen entspricht, der durch den Vertrieb der Produkte … in dem Jahr unmittelbar vor der Beendigung des Vertrags erzielt wurde“. In diesem Urteil von 2007 entschied der Gerichtshof also nicht über die Entschädigung der Kunden, sondern über den Schadenersatz.

                Auf diese Weise wurde die Schlussfolgerung aus dem Jahr 2007, den Schadensersatz auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen zu berechnen, ohne weitere Analyse auf das Jahr 2016 übertragen, allerdings für die Berechnung der Kundenentschädigung. Dieses Kriterium wird nun in den Urteilen des Jahres 2017 fast automatisch wieder aufgegriffen.

                Meines Erachtens sollte jedoch trotz der Änderung der Rechtsprechung die These vorherrschen, dass bei der analogen Anwendung des Kundenausgleichs in Vertriebsverträgen die Größe, die der „Vergütung“ des Vertreters entspricht, die „Bruttomarge“ ist, die der Vertriebshändler erzielt, und nicht seine „Nettomarge“: Es macht nicht viel Sinn, dass, wenn die Analogie angewandt wird, um den Kundenausgleich an einen Vertriebshändler anzuerkennen, dieser von seinen Bruttomargenbeträgen abgezogen wird, um seine Marge oder seinen Nettogewinn zu erreichen. Der Handelsvertreter hat auch seine Ausgaben und zahlt auch seine Steuern ausgehend von seinen „Vergütungen“, und nichts in der Richtlinie 86/653/EWG oder im Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag erlaubt es, solche Beträge abzuziehen, um seine Kundenvergütung zu berechnen. Meiner Meinung nach sollten daher die Vertriebshändler gleichgestellt werden: Die Größen, die verglichen werden könnten, sollten die (Brutto-)Vergütungen des Vertreters mit den (Brutto-)Margen des Vertriebshändlers sein (d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis).

                Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die Urteile vom 1. März und 19. Mai 2017 auf einem meines Erachtens früheren Irrtum beharren und zusätzliche Verwirrung in einer Frage stiften, die bereits erörtert wurde: Die analoge Anwendung der Kundenentschädigung auf die Vertriebsverträge und die Berechnungsmethode.

                Aktualisierungsmitteilung (27. Januar 2020)

                In einem kürzlich ergangenen Beschluss („Auto“) des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 20. November 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 über die Unzulässigkeit eines Rechtsmittels) hatte der Gerichtshof Gelegenheit, auf diese Frage zurückzukommen und die Kriterien der letzten Rechtsprechung zu bestätigen: Die  in den Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigende Größe für die Anwendung der Analogie und die Berechnung der Goodwill-Entschädigung sind die „Nettomargen“ .

                In diesem Verfahren legte ein Vertriebsunternehmen Berufung gegen die Entscheidung des Landgerichts Barcelona ein, das den Ausgleich auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen und nicht der Bruttomargen anerkannte. Der Händler beantragte beim Obersten Gerichtshof die Aufhebung dieses Urteils mit der Begründung, dass es nach der neuesten Rechtsprechung ergangen sei, die nach Ansicht des Rechtsmittelführers fehlerhaft sei.

                Der Oberste Gerichtshof scheint jedoch zu bestätigen, dass im Gegensatz zu der These, die ich oben in diesem Beitrag vertreten habe, „kein angeblicher Fehler in der jüngsten Rechtsprechung bei der analogen Auslegung von Art. 28.3 des Gesetzes über den Handelsvertreter für den Vertriebsvertrag und somit auch nicht die Notwendigkeit besteht, die jüngste Rechtsprechung zu diesem Thema zu überprüfen“. Wenn der Oberste Gerichtshof seine jüngste Rechtsprechung nicht überprüft und das Urteil, in dem die Nettomargen angewandt wurden, für akzeptabel hält, müssen wir folglich davon ausgehen, dass die Größenordnung, die bei der Entschädigung der Kundschaft in Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigen ist, die Nettomargen und nicht die Bruttomargen sind.

                Mit dieser Entscheidung scheint  das Gericht also die Diskussion zu beenden, die jedoch meiner Meinung nach weiterhin zu zahlreichen Diskussionen führen wird.

                Artists (actors, singers) and sportsmen, non-residents in Spanish territory, who occasionally carry out their artistic or sporting activities in Spain, are usually unaware of their tax obligations before the Spanish Tax Authorities.

                In this respect, we would like to point out that, in the last year, the inspection activity of the Spanish Tax Administration has increased considerably in relation to these taxpayers. This is a consequence of the fact that the Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan of the State Agency issued by the Spanish Tax Administration (AEAT) expressly included the intensification of the control of the income obtained by non-resident artists and sportsmen who act or develop an activity in Spain within the year 2020.

                Spanish legislation, which regulates the Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR), establishes literally that: it is considered income obtained in Spanish territory, among others, that which derives, directly or indirectly, from the personal performance in Spanish territory of artists and sportsmen, and that which derives from any other activity related to such performance, even if it is received by a person or entity other than the artist or sportsman.

                This means that the artist or sportsman who performs an activity in Spain for which he or she obtains income, is subject to tax obligations and to the payment of taxes in Spain and must declare not only the income directly related to his or her performance but also other income linked to his or her professional performance, such as sponsorships, image rights, etc…

                The above is understood regardless of whether the actual recipient of the income derived from the athlete’s or artist’s performance is the artist or athlete himself or herself, a company in which he or she has any interest, or a third individual or legal entity with no apparent connection to the athlete or artist.

                Therefore, even if the company that pays such income is a non-resident in Spanish territory and the payment takes place physically outside such territory, any income obtained in Spain will be considered subject to tax (19% for EU residents and 24% for non-EU residents) when it is obtained on account of the artistic or sporting activity carried out in the Spanish territory.

                Most of the double taxation international treaties that Spain has signed with other countries allow the country in which the activity of the artist or athlete takes place to tax the income generated from such activity. All these agreements also establish mechanisms to avoid double taxation, but this possibility is considerably complicated when, as in many cases, the artist or sportsman receives his income through a company incorporated in his country of residence or in a third country instead of receiving it directly as an individual.

                Often the contracts signed by artists and sportsmen are signed by companies related to them -usually domiciled in their country of residence-, this situation is giving rise to serious difficulties for them to deduct in their country of residence (and within the scope of Corporate Income Tax) the tax paid in Spain as an individual.

                We therefore want to highlight (i) the existence of important tax obligations that affects artists and sportsmen who are not resident in Spanish territory for the activities they carry out in Spain and, furthermore, (ii) the need for them to receive adequate prior advice on the tax consequences of their activity and, consequently, on the best vehicle to formalize their contracting.

                Summary

                One of the issues when setting up a (subsidiary) company in Spain which creates more practical difficulties is the question of powers of attorney: What is a power of attorney, are they necessary and how do they work? In Spain this question is of practical relevance and its operation does not always coincide with what happens in other countries. In this commentary, we will give you some ideas on how to act with these powers of attorney when setting up a company.

                What is a power of attorney? A power of attorney allows a person (attorney-in-fact or representative) to act on behalf of a company. The attorney-in-fact may, for example, sign a contract on behalf of a company if that company has given him or her the power (authority) to do so. For example, borrowing money from a bank.

                To do this the company will have two types of representatives: an „organic representative“ (the directors) and „voluntary representatives“ (attorneys-in-fact).

                First, a company must have at least one director

                The director(s) is the „organic representative“. In other words, he/she is an organ (management body) of the company, represents it and can contract on its behalf.

                This „organ“ may be a single person (a single director), it may be several persons acting individually or jointly, or it may be a board of directors („collegial body“). The power of representation resides in the „organ“. It is the body that represents the company and not necessarily its members.

                The first task, therefore, is to decide on the structure of the body, and this is taken when the company is incorporated, although it can be changed later. In this way, the sole director will have all the powers to represent the company, the individual directors will also have them if they are „joint and several” or will have to act jointly if they are „joint“ directors, and the board will also have them, but as a body (not each director individually).

                This last remark (the powers are held by the body and not necessarily by its members) is important when the company is managed by a board of directors. The fact that there is a board of directors does not imply that each member has the powers to represent the company, but that they are held by the body as a whole. The board may, however, delegate them. When the board delegates the powers to one of its directors (it is possible, but not obligatory to appoint one), the latter becomes a „managing director“ (Consejero Delegado). This director may then represent the company in all matters delegated to him/her.

                Secondly, in addition to the directors, the company may have (not compulsory) other „proxies“ (empowered person)

                These are the „voluntary representatives“, i.e. appointed „at the will“ of the company.

                A proxy is someone to whom the company gives powers to represent it. Powers to do certain things.

                As we said at the beginning, in Spain, acting by proxy is quite strict, so that a company cannot normally be represented by anyone who does not have the power to do so. For example, if the company authorises (empowers) a person only to sign banking contracts, he/she will not be able to sign contracts with employees.

                The powers granted to a person must therefore be express. If a person is authorised to open a bank account, he/she is not supposed to be able to borrow money. And in this way, the powers serve as a framework for action: what the attorney-in-fact can do and what the limits are. And sometimes these limits come from the power itself (opening a bank account does not authorise borrowing) or can be quantitative (borrowing, but only up to 100,000 euros), or temporary (borrowing, but until 31 December 2025) or even requiring more than one person to act (borrowing, but co-signing with person „Z“). And, of course, a combination of all of them: attorney-in-fact „X“ can take out loans by signing with attorney-in-fact „W“ up to 100,000 euros, and with attorney-in-fact „Z“ up to 1,000,000 euros.

                When setting up a company in Spain, it is therefore highly advisable to think about how the powers are to be granted, especially if the administrative body does not reside in our country. As we have seen from experience, it is not uncommon to set up a company by appointing an administrator resident abroad without appointing a proxy in Spain. This is legally valid, but, in a way, it hinders the functioning of the company: the only person to sign contracts and represent the company resides abroad, which, from a practical point of view, will be a major disadvantage.

                The procedure for empowering a person is simple. All it takes is a decision of the administrative body, formalisation before a notary and registration in the Commercial Register. In this way, anyone can verify that the person appointed can represent the company in that particular act. This does require a person of trust to be found (an employee, a resident partner, a third party), but the risk can be modulated by the limitation possibilities described above.

                In conclusion

                When setting up a company in Spain, if the administrator will not be resident in Spain, consider how to organise the powers of attorney, whom to empower and how to limit, if necessary, their powers.

                And the powers of attorney that you will need most and most urgently are:

                • (a) those that will allow you to contract with banks (opening and managing bank accounts),
                • (b) those relating to employees (hiring, registration with social security, payment of salaries),
                • (c) those for supply contracts (electricity, water, telephone) and other general contracts (rental, vehicles, distribution contracts); and
                • (d) managing the company’s electronic signature (relations with public administrations, tax payments).

                Failure to take this decision in a timely manner could delay or hinder the activity being started.

                And if in doubt, it is best to consult a local lawyer.

                Arbitration is a procedure for resolving disputes between parties that is very successful in the Anglo-Saxon legal system. But much less in our country.

                Arbitration has advantages and disadvantages; it is more expensive than the Courts, but it is much quicker; and speed is essential for justice to be such.

                Typically, an arbitration lasts six months plus a couple of months for the appointment of the arbitrator; in total, a dispute, however important and difficult it may be, can be definitively resolved in eight months.

                To compare with the Courts, in Spain today it takes on average eighteen months to obtain a judgement at first instance and another eighteen months for an appeal; without considering the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

                The cornerstone on which arbitration rests is that the arbitral award is final and definitive and cannot be reviewed or appealed; this statement has certain exceptions, mainly of a formal or procedural nature: basically, the legality of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the matter and the procedural regularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. These defects can be attacked by means of an action for annulment, which is heard by the ordinary courts.

                But in addition to the possible “formal” defects, the action for annulment can be based on the allegation of a breach of “public order”, which the Constitutional Court has defined and outlined as “those public and private, political, moral and economic legal principles which are absolutely obligatory for the preservation of society in a given people and at a given time”.

                As this definition of “public order” is undoubtedly broad and unspecific, the use of the violation of public order as a tool for declaring the nullity of arbitral awards by the ordinary courts has produced an “overflow” effect that has required, in the words of the Constitutional Court, “a restrictive interpretation of it, on pain of violating the autonomy of the will of the parties and their waiver of judicial protection”.

                This is what the Court has proclaimed in the very important judgement of 15 February 2021, which is the reason for this legal note.

                In recent years, the High Court of Justice of Madrid has resorted to the argument of “public order” in an extensive and “overwhelmed” manner to annul arbitral awards and “supplant the arbitral tribunal in its function of applying the law”, becoming “a second instance reviewing the facts and rights applied in the arbitral award, a control mechanism for the correct application of jurisprudence”.

                And this expansive and “overwhelmed” interpretation of public order as a tool for annulling arbitral awards by the High Court of Justice of Madrid had become a serious problem for the arbitral institution and for the confidence of the contracting parties when including arbitration agreements in their contracts.

                The principle that the arbitral award was the final and definitive solution to the dispute it was intended to resolve, except for procedural breaches or breaches of public order limited to those cases in which the arbitral award was arbitrary, illogical, absurd or irrational, was called into question and was a clear deterrent to contracting parties deciding to resolve their discrepancies through arbitration.

                Well then, the Constitutional Court, in a categorical and explicit manner, repeating what it had already stated in its judgement of June last year, confirms that the need for the arbitral award not to contravene public order cannot result in the judicial body replacing the arbitrator in his function of applying the law, nor can it become a second instance reviewing the facts and legal grounds applied in the arbitral award, nor a mechanism for controlling the correct application of case law.

                The principle of party autonomy prevails; and this means that when there is submission to arbitration, the parties have agreed that it should be through this channel that disputes between them are to be resolved, by means of the arbitrator’s decision, which can only be annulled through the strict channels that the Arbitration Act regulates; we insist, for procedural reasons or for violating public order in the restricted interpretation explained in the judgement we are commenting on; but in no case, by way of a second instance where the facts and legal grounds applied are re-evaluated once again.

                In short, Spanish arbitration is to be congratulated, and will be able to recover the momentum that caused it to lose, in part, the extensive interpretation of public order defended by some High Courts of Justice. From now on, the Courts will not be able to ignore the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, which is a breath of fresh air for Spanish arbitration.

                Zusammenfassung

                Bei der Beendigung von Handelsvertreter- und Vertriebsverträgen ist der Hauptkonfliktpunkt die Entschädigung für den Goodwill (Kundenstamm). Das spanische Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag sieht – ebenso wie die Richtlinie über Handelsvertreter – vor, dass der Handelsvertreter bei Beendigung des Vertrags unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen Anspruch auf einen Ausgleich hat. In Spanien kann dieser Ausgleich analog (wenn auch mit Einschränkungen und Abweichungen ) auch bei Vertriebsverträgen geltend gemacht werden.

                Für den Zuspruch eines  Kundenausgleichs ist es erforderlich, dass der Handelsvertreter (oder der Vertriebshändler: siehe diesen Beitrag, um mehr zu erfahren) neue Kunden gewonnen oder die Geschäfte mit bereits bestehenden Kunden erheblich ausgeweitet hat, sodass seine Tätigkeit dem Auftraggeber weiterhin erhebliche Vorteile bringen kann. Die Höhe der hierfür zu leistenden Ausgleichszahlung muss angemessen sein. All dies ist Voraussetzung für die Anerkennung des Ausgleichsanspruchs und dessen Höhe.

                Diese Begriffe (neue Kunden, erhebliche Ausweitung der Geschäfte mit bestehenden Kunden, wesentliche Vorteile, Angemessenheit der Ausgleichszahlung ) sind im Vorfeld schwer zu definieren, so dass es sich empfiehlt, die Klagen vor Gericht von Fall zu Fall auf Gutachten zu stützen, die von einem Anwalt überwacht werden.

                Zumindest in Spanien besteht die Tendenz, direkt den Höchstbetrag zu fordern, den die dort geltende Norm vorsieht (ein Jahresgehalt, das als Durchschnitt der letzten fünf Jahre berechnet wird), ohne eine weitere Analyse vorzunehmen. Bei einem derart pauschalen Vorgehen  besteht jedoch die Gefahr, dass ein Richter den Antrag als unbegründet zurückweist.

                Aus diesem Grund und aufgrund unserer Erfahrung halte ich es für angebracht, Hinweise zu geben, wie der Anspruch auf  Entschädigung und deren Höhe sich im Einzelfall begründen lässt.

                Der Vertreter/Händler, der Sachverständige und der Anwalt sollten Folgendes berücksichtigen:

                Prüfen Sie, wie hoch der Beitrag des Vertreters  war

                Entscheidend ist, ob  es bereits vor Vertragsbeginn Kunden gab und welches Umsatzvolumen mit ihnen erzielt wurde. Für die Anerkennung dieses Ausgleichs ist es entscheidend  ob der Vertreter die Zahl der Kunden erhöht hat oder mit bereits bestehenden Kunden arbeitet.

                Analyse des fortlaufenden Kundenwerts für den Auftraggeber

                Ihre Wiederkehr, ihre Loyalität (zum Auftraggeber und nicht zum Vermittler), die Abwanderungsrate (wie viele von ihnen werden nach  Vertragsabschluss beim Auftraggeber oder beim Vermittler bleiben) – nach all diesen Kriterien bemisst sich der Wert des durch den Vermittler gewonnenen Kundenstamms. In der Tat wird es schwierig sein, von einem „Kundenstamm“ zu sprechen, wenn es sich nur um sporadische, gelegentliche, nicht wiederkehrende oder nur wenige Kunden handelt, oder um Kunden, die in Zukunft dem Handelsvertreter und nicht dem Auftraggeber treu bleiben werden.

                Wie verhält sich der Vermittler bei Vertragsende?

                Die entscheidende Frage, die sich hier stellt: Kann er mit dem Auftraggeber konkurrieren oder gibt es Einschränkungen im Vertrag? Wenn der Handelsvertreter weiterhin dieselben Kunden betreuen kann, aber für einen anderen Auftraggeber, könnte die Entschädigung sehr wohl diskutiert werden.

                Ist die Vergütung angemessen?

                Untersuchen Sie hierfür, wie der Vertreter in der Vergangenheit gehandelt hat: Ob er seinen Verpflichtungen nachgekommen ist, wie er beiEinführung der Produkte oder der Markterschließung vorgegangen ist, wie sich diese Produkte oder Dienstleistungen in Zukunft entwickeln könnten usw.

                Wird der Vermittler seine Provisionen verlieren?

                Hier ist zu prüfen, ob der Vermittler  einer Ausschließlichkeitsbindung unterlag , ob es ihm leichter oder schwerer fiel im Anschluss, einen neuen Vertrag zu bekommen (z. B. aufgrund seines Alters, der Wirtschaftskrise, der Art der Produkte usw.) oder ob er eine neue Einnahmequelle hatte, wie sich die Umsätze in den letzten Jahren entwickelt haben (die für eine Entschädigung in Frage kommen) usw.

                Welches ist der gesetzliche Höchstwert, der nicht überschritten werden darf?

                Der Jahresdurchschnitt der während der Vertragslaufzeit (oder während eines Zeitraums von 5 Jahre, wenn der Vertrag länger dauerte) erhaltenen Beträge. Dazu gehören nicht nur die Provisionen, sondern auch etwaige Festbeträge, Boni, Preise usw. oder Margen im Falle von Vertriebshändlern.

                Und schließlich ist es zweckmäßig, alle analysierten Dokumente in den Bericht des Sachverständigen aufzunehmen

                Wenn dies nicht geschieht und sie nur erwähnt werden, könnte dies dazu führen, dass sie von einem Richter nicht berücksichtigt werden.

                Lesen Sie den praktischen Leitfaden für internationale Agenturvereinbarungen

                Weitere Informationen über die wichtigsten Merkmale eines Geschäftsbesorgungsvertrags in Spanien finden Sie in unserem Leitfaden.

                International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

                The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

                What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

                The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

                The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

                Verification of the identity of the company

                Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

                Request of financial  information

                What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

                Use the right contract

                What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

                Write down your agreements

                Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

                Follow your contract

                If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

                Document all transactions

                From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

                Has the debtor risen objections?

                Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

                Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

                In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

                Seek guarantees for your credits

                This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

                Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

                Check out our webinar on debt collection

                On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

                You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

                Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

                If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

                The Spanish government has recently approved two new rules on equal pay and equality plans which will come into force in January and April 2021 and affect all companies.

                1. Royal Decree 901/2020, of October 13, which regulates the equality plans and their registration

                An „equality plan“ is understood to be that ordered set of measures adopted after carrying out a situation diagnosis, aimed at achieving equal treatment and opportunities between women and men in the company, and eliminating discrimination based on sex.

                All companies that have 50 or more workers are obliged to draw up and apply an equality plan, its implementation being voluntary for other companies. In any case, equality plans, including previous diagnoses, must be subject to negotiation with the legal representation of the workers, in accordance with the procedure legally established for that purpose.

                Regarding the content of the plans, they must include, among others, definition of quantitative and qualitative objectives, description of the specific measures to be adopted, identification of means and resources, calendar of actions, monitoring and evaluation systems, etc. In addition, they must be subject to mandatory registration in a public registry.

                This new Royal Decree will enter into force on January 14, 2021.

                2. Royal Decree 902/2020, of October 13, of equal pay between women and men

                The purpose of this new Royal Decree is to implement specific measures that make it possible to enforce the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination between women and men in matters of remuneration.

                For this, the companies and collective agreements must integrate and apply the so-called „principle of remuneration transparency„, which applied to the different aspects that determine the remuneration of workers, allows obtaining sufficient and significant information on the value attributed to such remuneration.

                For the application of the aforementioned principle, the Royal Decree provides, fundamentally, two instruments:

                • remuneration registry: All companies must have an accessible remuneration registry for the legal representation of workers. It must include the average values ​​of salaries, salary supplements and extra-salary perceptions of the entire workforce (including managers and senior positions) disaggregated by sex.
                • remuneration audit: Those companies that draw up an equality plan must include a remuneration audit in it. Its purpose is to check if the company’s remuneration system complies with the effective application of the principle of equality, defining the needs to avoid, correct and prevent obstacles and difficulties that may exist.

                The measures contained in this new standard will come into effect on April 14, 2021.

                Ignacio Alonso

                Rechtsgebiete

                • Agentur
                • Unternehmen
                • Vertrieb
                • Franchising
                Kontakt Ignacio

                Schreiben Sie an Ignacio





                  Legalmondos Datenschutzbestimmungen lesen.
                  This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

                  Spain | Covid 19 – Measures for payment of the rent for commercial and industrial premises

                  18. April 2020

                  • Spanien
                  • Verträge
                  • Liegenschaften

                  What a director of a company in Spain must do to resign? Is it enough to send a communication to the company stating his resignation? Or does he have to call a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute? Or does he even have to do something else?

                  A recent Supreme Court ruling dated July 12, 2022 (STS 561/2022) has resolved an interesting case related to the resignation of a sole director of an LLC, confirming that resigning is not as simple as it may seem.

                  The SC, indeed, established that a sole director, to resign, must not only prove that he validly called a Shareholders‘ Meeting for the appointment of a substitute, but he must also prove that he did everything necessary during the interim period (i.e.: the time between the resignation and the holding of the Meeting) to meet the needs of management and representation of the company and to avoid damages. Even, and this is the case discussed in the STS, requiring the presence of a notary at the Meeting, if so required by shareholders representing at least 5% of the share capital.

                  The case recently ruled by the SC involved a company with two shareholders: the majority partner with 75% of the capital, and the minority partner (and sole administrator) with 25%. The sole administrator resigned and called a Shareholder’s Meeting to appoint a substitute. The majority shareholder required the presence of a Notary at the Meeting; but the resigning director refused, stating that – following his resignation – he had no obligation regarding the Meeting.

                  On the day of the Meeting, the majority shareholder was present, but neither the resigning administrator nor the Notary were, therefore the Shareholder’s Meeting was not held.

                  The administrator filed the deed of resignation with the Commercial Registry and the majority shareholder – at the same time – filed a document denouncing that the resigning administrator had not requested the presence of a Notary at the Meeting, despite having been requested to do so.

                  Thereafter, several resolutions with very different contents were issued. The Commercial Registrar suspended the registration of the resignation, but the „Dirección General del Notariado y de los Registros“ (General Directorate of Notaries and Registries) decided that the resignation should be registered. The Commercial Court of Barcelona confirmed this last decision, and so did the Provincial Court. But the Supreme Court finally gave reason to the Mercantile Registrar.

                  The rulings in favor of the registration of the resignation argued, firstly, that the outgoing administrator exhausted his responsibilities by convening the Shareholder’s Meeting; and secondly, that the Registrar must examine only if a document may be entered in the register, without considering the „extra-registry reality“, such as the document presented by the majority shareholder complaining about the administrator’s actions.

                  The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the absence of a Notary, validly requested by the majority shareholder, rendered ineffective all the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. Based on this, the Supreme Court considered it „logical“ that in such a case the administrator should not only call the Shareholder’s Meeting but also require the presence of a Notary, in order to grant the validity of the resolutions of the Shareholder’s Meeting. With respect to the second controversial issue, the Supreme Court ruled that the Registrar, although exceptionally, can take into account certain circumstances or facts of which he has „registry evidence“, even if they do not appear by virtue of documents presented for their inscription, as long as they are related to the „inscribable“ document.

                  In short, this interesting case shows that resigning as an administrator is not an easy activity. In general, although there is no specific provision on the subject in the Spanish system, the resigning administrator must not only call a Shareholder’s Meeting, but also remain administrator on an interim basis and attend to his obligations until the Shareholder’s Meeting is held; then, if the Shareholder’s Meeting is not held due to the non-attendance of the shareholders or if the shareholders do not appoint a substitute administrator, nothing more is required from the resigning administrator.

                  Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Obersten Gerichtshofs Spaniens kann ein Handelsvertreter Anspruch auf Ausgleichszahlungen für die Kundschaft haben, wenn Artikel 28 des Handelsvertretergesetzes analog angewendet wird (die „inspirierende Idee„). Dieser Ausgleich wird für den Handelsvertreter auf der Grundlage der in den letzten fünf Jahren erhaltenen Vergütungen berechnet.

                  In einem Vertriebsvertrag gibt es jedoch keine „Vergütungen“, wie sie der Handelsvertreter erhält (Provisionen, Festbeträge oder andere), sondern „Handelsspannen“ (Differenzen zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis). Es stellt sich also die Frage, welche Größenordnung für die Kundenvergütung in einem Vertriebsvertrag in Betracht zu ziehen ist: Entweder die „Bruttomarge“ (die bereits erwähnte Differenz zwischen dem Einkaufs- und dem Wiederverkaufspreis) oder die „Nettomarge“ (dieselbe Differenz, aber abzüglich anderer Ausgaben und Steuern, die dem Vertriebshändler entstanden sind).

                  Die bisherige Schlussfolgerung schien darin zu bestehen, die Vergütung des Vertriebshändlers aus seinen „Bruttomargen“ zu berechnen, da dies eine Größe ist, die eher mit der „Vergütung“ des Handelsvertreters vergleichbar ist: Andere Ausgaben und Steuern des Vertriebshändlers konnten nicht in der gleichen Weise abgezogen werden wie bei einem Handelsvertretervertrag, bei dem weder Ausgaben noch Steuern abgezogen wurden.

                  Der Oberste Gerichtshof (17. November 1999) hatte darauf hingewiesen, dass es für die Berechnung der Entschädigung für die Kunden „angemessener ist, sie als Bruttobeitrag zu betrachten, da der Vertreter damit alle Auslagen seiner kommerziellen Organisation decken muss„. Außerdem stellen die „erzielten Einkünfte“ „keine Vergütung im gleichen Sinne dar“ (21. Oktober 2008), da solche „Leistungen“ „zum internen Bereich der eigenen Organisation des Vertreters gehören“ (12. März 2012).

                  Kürzlich wurde jedoch in einem Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 1. März 2017 (bestätigt durch ein weiteres Urteil vom 19. Mai 2017) die Auffassung vertreten, dass die Bestimmung der Höhe der Kundenentschädigung in einem Vertriebsvertrag nicht auf der Grundlage der vom Vertriebshändler erzielten „Bruttomargen“ erfolgen kann, sondern auf der Grundlage der „Nettomarge“. Um zu dieser Schlussfolgerung zu gelangen, verweist das Gericht auf ein Urteil desselben Gerichts aus dem Jahr 2016 sowie auf weitere Urteile aus den Jahren 2010 und 2007.

                  Bedeutet dies eine Änderung der Rechtsprechung? Meiner Meinung nach ist diese Lesart des Obersten Gerichtshofs nicht richtig. Lassen Sie uns sehen, warum.

                  Im Urteil vom März 2017 wird der Disjunktiv zwischen Brutto- und Nettomarge im zweiten Rechtsgrund erwähnt und bezieht sich auf das Urteil von 2016.

                  In diesem Urteil aus dem Jahr 2016 heißt es, dass in einem anderen Urteil aus dem Jahr 2010 zwar nicht entschieden wurde, ob die Berechnung auf der Grundlage der Brutto- oder der Nettomarge erfolgen muss, in einem früheren Urteil aus dem Jahr 2007 jedoch eingeräumt wurde, dass der vom Händler erzielte Nettogewinn (Gewinn nach Abzug von Kosten und Steuern) und nicht die Marge, d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis, mit der Vergütung des Vertreters vergleichbar ist.

                  Meines Erachtens bezieht sich der Oberste Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil vom März 2017 in letzter Instanz auf das Urteil 296/2007, was dort nicht gesagt wurde. Im Jahr 2007 bezifferte der Oberste Gerichtshof nicht die Entschädigung der Kundschaft, sondern den Schadenersatz. Genauer gesagt, und nach der Feststellung, dass „die Entschädigung der Kunden in der Klage klar und eindeutig gefordert werden muss„, kam der Gerichtshof zu dem Schluss, dass die Kammer „entscheiden muss, was den Bedingungen entspricht, unter denen die Debatte … in der ursprünglichen Klage geführt wurde. Und da … das Interesse an einer Entschädigung hauptsächlich auf der Dauer der Beziehung beruhte … besteht die Lösung, die der Rechtsprechung dieses Gerichtshofs besser entspricht, darin, als Entschädigung einen Betrag festzusetzen, der dem Nettonutzen entspricht, der durch den Vertrieb der Produkte … in dem Jahr unmittelbar vor der Beendigung des Vertrags erzielt wurde“. In diesem Urteil von 2007 entschied der Gerichtshof also nicht über die Entschädigung der Kunden, sondern über den Schadenersatz.

                  Auf diese Weise wurde die Schlussfolgerung aus dem Jahr 2007, den Schadensersatz auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen zu berechnen, ohne weitere Analyse auf das Jahr 2016 übertragen, allerdings für die Berechnung der Kundenentschädigung. Dieses Kriterium wird nun in den Urteilen des Jahres 2017 fast automatisch wieder aufgegriffen.

                  Meines Erachtens sollte jedoch trotz der Änderung der Rechtsprechung die These vorherrschen, dass bei der analogen Anwendung des Kundenausgleichs in Vertriebsverträgen die Größe, die der „Vergütung“ des Vertreters entspricht, die „Bruttomarge“ ist, die der Vertriebshändler erzielt, und nicht seine „Nettomarge“: Es macht nicht viel Sinn, dass, wenn die Analogie angewandt wird, um den Kundenausgleich an einen Vertriebshändler anzuerkennen, dieser von seinen Bruttomargenbeträgen abgezogen wird, um seine Marge oder seinen Nettogewinn zu erreichen. Der Handelsvertreter hat auch seine Ausgaben und zahlt auch seine Steuern ausgehend von seinen „Vergütungen“, und nichts in der Richtlinie 86/653/EWG oder im Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag erlaubt es, solche Beträge abzuziehen, um seine Kundenvergütung zu berechnen. Meiner Meinung nach sollten daher die Vertriebshändler gleichgestellt werden: Die Größen, die verglichen werden könnten, sollten die (Brutto-)Vergütungen des Vertreters mit den (Brutto-)Margen des Vertriebshändlers sein (d. h. die Differenz zwischen Einkaufs- und Wiederverkaufspreis).

                  Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die Urteile vom 1. März und 19. Mai 2017 auf einem meines Erachtens früheren Irrtum beharren und zusätzliche Verwirrung in einer Frage stiften, die bereits erörtert wurde: Die analoge Anwendung der Kundenentschädigung auf die Vertriebsverträge und die Berechnungsmethode.

                  Aktualisierungsmitteilung (27. Januar 2020)

                  In einem kürzlich ergangenen Beschluss („Auto“) des Obersten Gerichtshofs vom 20. November 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 über die Unzulässigkeit eines Rechtsmittels) hatte der Gerichtshof Gelegenheit, auf diese Frage zurückzukommen und die Kriterien der letzten Rechtsprechung zu bestätigen: Die  in den Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigende Größe für die Anwendung der Analogie und die Berechnung der Goodwill-Entschädigung sind die „Nettomargen“ .

                  In diesem Verfahren legte ein Vertriebsunternehmen Berufung gegen die Entscheidung des Landgerichts Barcelona ein, das den Ausgleich auf der Grundlage der Nettomargen und nicht der Bruttomargen anerkannte. Der Händler beantragte beim Obersten Gerichtshof die Aufhebung dieses Urteils mit der Begründung, dass es nach der neuesten Rechtsprechung ergangen sei, die nach Ansicht des Rechtsmittelführers fehlerhaft sei.

                  Der Oberste Gerichtshof scheint jedoch zu bestätigen, dass im Gegensatz zu der These, die ich oben in diesem Beitrag vertreten habe, „kein angeblicher Fehler in der jüngsten Rechtsprechung bei der analogen Auslegung von Art. 28.3 des Gesetzes über den Handelsvertreter für den Vertriebsvertrag und somit auch nicht die Notwendigkeit besteht, die jüngste Rechtsprechung zu diesem Thema zu überprüfen“. Wenn der Oberste Gerichtshof seine jüngste Rechtsprechung nicht überprüft und das Urteil, in dem die Nettomargen angewandt wurden, für akzeptabel hält, müssen wir folglich davon ausgehen, dass die Größenordnung, die bei der Entschädigung der Kundschaft in Vertriebsverträgen zu berücksichtigen ist, die Nettomargen und nicht die Bruttomargen sind.

                  Mit dieser Entscheidung scheint  das Gericht also die Diskussion zu beenden, die jedoch meiner Meinung nach weiterhin zu zahlreichen Diskussionen führen wird.

                  Artists (actors, singers) and sportsmen, non-residents in Spanish territory, who occasionally carry out their artistic or sporting activities in Spain, are usually unaware of their tax obligations before the Spanish Tax Authorities.

                  In this respect, we would like to point out that, in the last year, the inspection activity of the Spanish Tax Administration has increased considerably in relation to these taxpayers. This is a consequence of the fact that the Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan of the State Agency issued by the Spanish Tax Administration (AEAT) expressly included the intensification of the control of the income obtained by non-resident artists and sportsmen who act or develop an activity in Spain within the year 2020.

                  Spanish legislation, which regulates the Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR), establishes literally that: it is considered income obtained in Spanish territory, among others, that which derives, directly or indirectly, from the personal performance in Spanish territory of artists and sportsmen, and that which derives from any other activity related to such performance, even if it is received by a person or entity other than the artist or sportsman.

                  This means that the artist or sportsman who performs an activity in Spain for which he or she obtains income, is subject to tax obligations and to the payment of taxes in Spain and must declare not only the income directly related to his or her performance but also other income linked to his or her professional performance, such as sponsorships, image rights, etc…

                  The above is understood regardless of whether the actual recipient of the income derived from the athlete’s or artist’s performance is the artist or athlete himself or herself, a company in which he or she has any interest, or a third individual or legal entity with no apparent connection to the athlete or artist.

                  Therefore, even if the company that pays such income is a non-resident in Spanish territory and the payment takes place physically outside such territory, any income obtained in Spain will be considered subject to tax (19% for EU residents and 24% for non-EU residents) when it is obtained on account of the artistic or sporting activity carried out in the Spanish territory.

                  Most of the double taxation international treaties that Spain has signed with other countries allow the country in which the activity of the artist or athlete takes place to tax the income generated from such activity. All these agreements also establish mechanisms to avoid double taxation, but this possibility is considerably complicated when, as in many cases, the artist or sportsman receives his income through a company incorporated in his country of residence or in a third country instead of receiving it directly as an individual.

                  Often the contracts signed by artists and sportsmen are signed by companies related to them -usually domiciled in their country of residence-, this situation is giving rise to serious difficulties for them to deduct in their country of residence (and within the scope of Corporate Income Tax) the tax paid in Spain as an individual.

                  We therefore want to highlight (i) the existence of important tax obligations that affects artists and sportsmen who are not resident in Spanish territory for the activities they carry out in Spain and, furthermore, (ii) the need for them to receive adequate prior advice on the tax consequences of their activity and, consequently, on the best vehicle to formalize their contracting.

                  Summary

                  One of the issues when setting up a (subsidiary) company in Spain which creates more practical difficulties is the question of powers of attorney: What is a power of attorney, are they necessary and how do they work? In Spain this question is of practical relevance and its operation does not always coincide with what happens in other countries. In this commentary, we will give you some ideas on how to act with these powers of attorney when setting up a company.

                  What is a power of attorney? A power of attorney allows a person (attorney-in-fact or representative) to act on behalf of a company. The attorney-in-fact may, for example, sign a contract on behalf of a company if that company has given him or her the power (authority) to do so. For example, borrowing money from a bank.

                  To do this the company will have two types of representatives: an „organic representative“ (the directors) and „voluntary representatives“ (attorneys-in-fact).

                  First, a company must have at least one director

                  The director(s) is the „organic representative“. In other words, he/she is an organ (management body) of the company, represents it and can contract on its behalf.

                  This „organ“ may be a single person (a single director), it may be several persons acting individually or jointly, or it may be a board of directors („collegial body“). The power of representation resides in the „organ“. It is the body that represents the company and not necessarily its members.

                  The first task, therefore, is to decide on the structure of the body, and this is taken when the company is incorporated, although it can be changed later. In this way, the sole director will have all the powers to represent the company, the individual directors will also have them if they are „joint and several” or will have to act jointly if they are „joint“ directors, and the board will also have them, but as a body (not each director individually).

                  This last remark (the powers are held by the body and not necessarily by its members) is important when the company is managed by a board of directors. The fact that there is a board of directors does not imply that each member has the powers to represent the company, but that they are held by the body as a whole. The board may, however, delegate them. When the board delegates the powers to one of its directors (it is possible, but not obligatory to appoint one), the latter becomes a „managing director“ (Consejero Delegado). This director may then represent the company in all matters delegated to him/her.

                  Secondly, in addition to the directors, the company may have (not compulsory) other „proxies“ (empowered person)

                  These are the „voluntary representatives“, i.e. appointed „at the will“ of the company.

                  A proxy is someone to whom the company gives powers to represent it. Powers to do certain things.

                  As we said at the beginning, in Spain, acting by proxy is quite strict, so that a company cannot normally be represented by anyone who does not have the power to do so. For example, if the company authorises (empowers) a person only to sign banking contracts, he/she will not be able to sign contracts with employees.

                  The powers granted to a person must therefore be express. If a person is authorised to open a bank account, he/she is not supposed to be able to borrow money. And in this way, the powers serve as a framework for action: what the attorney-in-fact can do and what the limits are. And sometimes these limits come from the power itself (opening a bank account does not authorise borrowing) or can be quantitative (borrowing, but only up to 100,000 euros), or temporary (borrowing, but until 31 December 2025) or even requiring more than one person to act (borrowing, but co-signing with person „Z“). And, of course, a combination of all of them: attorney-in-fact „X“ can take out loans by signing with attorney-in-fact „W“ up to 100,000 euros, and with attorney-in-fact „Z“ up to 1,000,000 euros.

                  When setting up a company in Spain, it is therefore highly advisable to think about how the powers are to be granted, especially if the administrative body does not reside in our country. As we have seen from experience, it is not uncommon to set up a company by appointing an administrator resident abroad without appointing a proxy in Spain. This is legally valid, but, in a way, it hinders the functioning of the company: the only person to sign contracts and represent the company resides abroad, which, from a practical point of view, will be a major disadvantage.

                  The procedure for empowering a person is simple. All it takes is a decision of the administrative body, formalisation before a notary and registration in the Commercial Register. In this way, anyone can verify that the person appointed can represent the company in that particular act. This does require a person of trust to be found (an employee, a resident partner, a third party), but the risk can be modulated by the limitation possibilities described above.

                  In conclusion

                  When setting up a company in Spain, if the administrator will not be resident in Spain, consider how to organise the powers of attorney, whom to empower and how to limit, if necessary, their powers.

                  And the powers of attorney that you will need most and most urgently are:

                  • (a) those that will allow you to contract with banks (opening and managing bank accounts),
                  • (b) those relating to employees (hiring, registration with social security, payment of salaries),
                  • (c) those for supply contracts (electricity, water, telephone) and other general contracts (rental, vehicles, distribution contracts); and
                  • (d) managing the company’s electronic signature (relations with public administrations, tax payments).

                  Failure to take this decision in a timely manner could delay or hinder the activity being started.

                  And if in doubt, it is best to consult a local lawyer.

                  Arbitration is a procedure for resolving disputes between parties that is very successful in the Anglo-Saxon legal system. But much less in our country.

                  Arbitration has advantages and disadvantages; it is more expensive than the Courts, but it is much quicker; and speed is essential for justice to be such.

                  Typically, an arbitration lasts six months plus a couple of months for the appointment of the arbitrator; in total, a dispute, however important and difficult it may be, can be definitively resolved in eight months.

                  To compare with the Courts, in Spain today it takes on average eighteen months to obtain a judgement at first instance and another eighteen months for an appeal; without considering the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

                  The cornerstone on which arbitration rests is that the arbitral award is final and definitive and cannot be reviewed or appealed; this statement has certain exceptions, mainly of a formal or procedural nature: basically, the legality of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the matter and the procedural regularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. These defects can be attacked by means of an action for annulment, which is heard by the ordinary courts.

                  But in addition to the possible “formal” defects, the action for annulment can be based on the allegation of a breach of “public order”, which the Constitutional Court has defined and outlined as “those public and private, political, moral and economic legal principles which are absolutely obligatory for the preservation of society in a given people and at a given time”.

                  As this definition of “public order” is undoubtedly broad and unspecific, the use of the violation of public order as a tool for declaring the nullity of arbitral awards by the ordinary courts has produced an “overflow” effect that has required, in the words of the Constitutional Court, “a restrictive interpretation of it, on pain of violating the autonomy of the will of the parties and their waiver of judicial protection”.

                  This is what the Court has proclaimed in the very important judgement of 15 February 2021, which is the reason for this legal note.

                  In recent years, the High Court of Justice of Madrid has resorted to the argument of “public order” in an extensive and “overwhelmed” manner to annul arbitral awards and “supplant the arbitral tribunal in its function of applying the law”, becoming “a second instance reviewing the facts and rights applied in the arbitral award, a control mechanism for the correct application of jurisprudence”.

                  And this expansive and “overwhelmed” interpretation of public order as a tool for annulling arbitral awards by the High Court of Justice of Madrid had become a serious problem for the arbitral institution and for the confidence of the contracting parties when including arbitration agreements in their contracts.

                  The principle that the arbitral award was the final and definitive solution to the dispute it was intended to resolve, except for procedural breaches or breaches of public order limited to those cases in which the arbitral award was arbitrary, illogical, absurd or irrational, was called into question and was a clear deterrent to contracting parties deciding to resolve their discrepancies through arbitration.

                  Well then, the Constitutional Court, in a categorical and explicit manner, repeating what it had already stated in its judgement of June last year, confirms that the need for the arbitral award not to contravene public order cannot result in the judicial body replacing the arbitrator in his function of applying the law, nor can it become a second instance reviewing the facts and legal grounds applied in the arbitral award, nor a mechanism for controlling the correct application of case law.

                  The principle of party autonomy prevails; and this means that when there is submission to arbitration, the parties have agreed that it should be through this channel that disputes between them are to be resolved, by means of the arbitrator’s decision, which can only be annulled through the strict channels that the Arbitration Act regulates; we insist, for procedural reasons or for violating public order in the restricted interpretation explained in the judgement we are commenting on; but in no case, by way of a second instance where the facts and legal grounds applied are re-evaluated once again.

                  In short, Spanish arbitration is to be congratulated, and will be able to recover the momentum that caused it to lose, in part, the extensive interpretation of public order defended by some High Courts of Justice. From now on, the Courts will not be able to ignore the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, which is a breath of fresh air for Spanish arbitration.

                  Zusammenfassung

                  Bei der Beendigung von Handelsvertreter- und Vertriebsverträgen ist der Hauptkonfliktpunkt die Entschädigung für den Goodwill (Kundenstamm). Das spanische Gesetz über den Handelsvertretervertrag sieht – ebenso wie die Richtlinie über Handelsvertreter – vor, dass der Handelsvertreter bei Beendigung des Vertrags unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen Anspruch auf einen Ausgleich hat. In Spanien kann dieser Ausgleich analog (wenn auch mit Einschränkungen und Abweichungen ) auch bei Vertriebsverträgen geltend gemacht werden.

                  Für den Zuspruch eines  Kundenausgleichs ist es erforderlich, dass der Handelsvertreter (oder der Vertriebshändler: siehe diesen Beitrag, um mehr zu erfahren) neue Kunden gewonnen oder die Geschäfte mit bereits bestehenden Kunden erheblich ausgeweitet hat, sodass seine Tätigkeit dem Auftraggeber weiterhin erhebliche Vorteile bringen kann. Die Höhe der hierfür zu leistenden Ausgleichszahlung muss angemessen sein. All dies ist Voraussetzung für die Anerkennung des Ausgleichsanspruchs und dessen Höhe.

                  Diese Begriffe (neue Kunden, erhebliche Ausweitung der Geschäfte mit bestehenden Kunden, wesentliche Vorteile, Angemessenheit der Ausgleichszahlung ) sind im Vorfeld schwer zu definieren, so dass es sich empfiehlt, die Klagen vor Gericht von Fall zu Fall auf Gutachten zu stützen, die von einem Anwalt überwacht werden.

                  Zumindest in Spanien besteht die Tendenz, direkt den Höchstbetrag zu fordern, den die dort geltende Norm vorsieht (ein Jahresgehalt, das als Durchschnitt der letzten fünf Jahre berechnet wird), ohne eine weitere Analyse vorzunehmen. Bei einem derart pauschalen Vorgehen  besteht jedoch die Gefahr, dass ein Richter den Antrag als unbegründet zurückweist.

                  Aus diesem Grund und aufgrund unserer Erfahrung halte ich es für angebracht, Hinweise zu geben, wie der Anspruch auf  Entschädigung und deren Höhe sich im Einzelfall begründen lässt.

                  Der Vertreter/Händler, der Sachverständige und der Anwalt sollten Folgendes berücksichtigen:

                  Prüfen Sie, wie hoch der Beitrag des Vertreters  war

                  Entscheidend ist, ob  es bereits vor Vertragsbeginn Kunden gab und welches Umsatzvolumen mit ihnen erzielt wurde. Für die Anerkennung dieses Ausgleichs ist es entscheidend  ob der Vertreter die Zahl der Kunden erhöht hat oder mit bereits bestehenden Kunden arbeitet.

                  Analyse des fortlaufenden Kundenwerts für den Auftraggeber

                  Ihre Wiederkehr, ihre Loyalität (zum Auftraggeber und nicht zum Vermittler), die Abwanderungsrate (wie viele von ihnen werden nach  Vertragsabschluss beim Auftraggeber oder beim Vermittler bleiben) – nach all diesen Kriterien bemisst sich der Wert des durch den Vermittler gewonnenen Kundenstamms. In der Tat wird es schwierig sein, von einem „Kundenstamm“ zu sprechen, wenn es sich nur um sporadische, gelegentliche, nicht wiederkehrende oder nur wenige Kunden handelt, oder um Kunden, die in Zukunft dem Handelsvertreter und nicht dem Auftraggeber treu bleiben werden.

                  Wie verhält sich der Vermittler bei Vertragsende?

                  Die entscheidende Frage, die sich hier stellt: Kann er mit dem Auftraggeber konkurrieren oder gibt es Einschränkungen im Vertrag? Wenn der Handelsvertreter weiterhin dieselben Kunden betreuen kann, aber für einen anderen Auftraggeber, könnte die Entschädigung sehr wohl diskutiert werden.

                  Ist die Vergütung angemessen?

                  Untersuchen Sie hierfür, wie der Vertreter in der Vergangenheit gehandelt hat: Ob er seinen Verpflichtungen nachgekommen ist, wie er beiEinführung der Produkte oder der Markterschließung vorgegangen ist, wie sich diese Produkte oder Dienstleistungen in Zukunft entwickeln könnten usw.

                  Wird der Vermittler seine Provisionen verlieren?

                  Hier ist zu prüfen, ob der Vermittler  einer Ausschließlichkeitsbindung unterlag , ob es ihm leichter oder schwerer fiel im Anschluss, einen neuen Vertrag zu bekommen (z. B. aufgrund seines Alters, der Wirtschaftskrise, der Art der Produkte usw.) oder ob er eine neue Einnahmequelle hatte, wie sich die Umsätze in den letzten Jahren entwickelt haben (die für eine Entschädigung in Frage kommen) usw.

                  Welches ist der gesetzliche Höchstwert, der nicht überschritten werden darf?

                  Der Jahresdurchschnitt der während der Vertragslaufzeit (oder während eines Zeitraums von 5 Jahre, wenn der Vertrag länger dauerte) erhaltenen Beträge. Dazu gehören nicht nur die Provisionen, sondern auch etwaige Festbeträge, Boni, Preise usw. oder Margen im Falle von Vertriebshändlern.

                  Und schließlich ist es zweckmäßig, alle analysierten Dokumente in den Bericht des Sachverständigen aufzunehmen

                  Wenn dies nicht geschieht und sie nur erwähnt werden, könnte dies dazu führen, dass sie von einem Richter nicht berücksichtigt werden.

                  Lesen Sie den praktischen Leitfaden für internationale Agenturvereinbarungen

                  Weitere Informationen über die wichtigsten Merkmale eines Geschäftsbesorgungsvertrags in Spanien finden Sie in unserem Leitfaden.

                  International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

                  The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

                  What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

                  The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

                  The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

                  Verification of the identity of the company

                  Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

                  Request of financial  information

                  What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

                  Use the right contract

                  What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

                  Write down your agreements

                  Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

                  Follow your contract

                  If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

                  Document all transactions

                  From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

                  Has the debtor risen objections?

                  Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

                  Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

                  In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

                  Seek guarantees for your credits

                  This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

                  Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

                  Check out our webinar on debt collection

                  On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

                  You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

                  Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

                  If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

                  The Spanish government has recently approved two new rules on equal pay and equality plans which will come into force in January and April 2021 and affect all companies.

                  1. Royal Decree 901/2020, of October 13, which regulates the equality plans and their registration

                  An „equality plan“ is understood to be that ordered set of measures adopted after carrying out a situation diagnosis, aimed at achieving equal treatment and opportunities between women and men in the company, and eliminating discrimination based on sex.

                  All companies that have 50 or more workers are obliged to draw up and apply an equality plan, its implementation being voluntary for other companies. In any case, equality plans, including previous diagnoses, must be subject to negotiation with the legal representation of the workers, in accordance with the procedure legally established for that purpose.

                  Regarding the content of the plans, they must include, among others, definition of quantitative and qualitative objectives, description of the specific measures to be adopted, identification of means and resources, calendar of actions, monitoring and evaluation systems, etc. In addition, they must be subject to mandatory registration in a public registry.

                  This new Royal Decree will enter into force on January 14, 2021.

                  2. Royal Decree 902/2020, of October 13, of equal pay between women and men

                  The purpose of this new Royal Decree is to implement specific measures that make it possible to enforce the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination between women and men in matters of remuneration.

                  For this, the companies and collective agreements must integrate and apply the so-called „principle of remuneration transparency„, which applied to the different aspects that determine the remuneration of workers, allows obtaining sufficient and significant information on the value attributed to such remuneration.

                  For the application of the aforementioned principle, the Royal Decree provides, fundamentally, two instruments:

                  • remuneration registry: All companies must have an accessible remuneration registry for the legal representation of workers. It must include the average values ​​of salaries, salary supplements and extra-salary perceptions of the entire workforce (including managers and senior positions) disaggregated by sex.
                  • remuneration audit: Those companies that draw up an equality plan must include a remuneration audit in it. Its purpose is to check if the company’s remuneration system complies with the effective application of the principle of equality, defining the needs to avoid, correct and prevent obstacles and difficulties that may exist.

                  The measures contained in this new standard will come into effect on April 14, 2021.

                  Mercedes Clavell

                  Rechtsgebiete

                  • Franchising
                  • Einwanderung
                  • Internationaler Handel
                  • Fusionen und Übernahmen
                  • Immobilien
                  Kontakt Mercedes

                  Schreiben Sie an Mercedes





                    Legalmondos Datenschutzbestimmungen lesen.
                    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.