Spain | Taxation of non-resident artists and sportsmen

30 juillet 2021

  • Espagne
  • Impôts

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.

Selon la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour suprême espagnole, un distributeur peut avoir droit à une compensation pour la clientèle si l’article 28 de la loi sur les agences est appliqué par analogie (l' »idée inspiratrice« ). Cette compensation est calculée pour l’agent sur la base des rémunérations perçues au cours des cinq dernières années.

Or, dans un contrat de distribution, il n’y a pas de « rémunérations » telles que celles perçues par l’agent (commissions, forfaits ou autres), mais des « marges commerciales » (différences entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente). La question est donc de savoir quelle grandeur il faut considérer pour la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution : soit la  » marge brute  » (la différence susmentionnée entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente), soit la  » marge nette  » (cette même différence mais en déduisant les autres frais et taxes dans lesquels le distributeur s’est engagé).

La conclusion jusqu’à présent semblait être de calculer la rémunération du distributeur à partir de ses « marges brutes », car il s’agit d’une grandeur plus comparable à la « rémunération » de l’agent : les autres dépenses et impôts du distributeur ne pouvaient pas être déduits de la même manière que dans un contrat d’agence, ni les dépenses ni les impôts n’étaient déduits.

La Cour suprême (17 novembre 1999) avait souligné que pour calculer la rémunération des clients « il est plus approprié de la considérer comme une contribution brute, car avec elle l’agent doit couvrir tous les débours de son organisation commerciale ». En outre, les « gains obtenus » « ne constituent pas une rémunération dans le même sens » (21 octobre 2008), étant donné que ces « avantages« , « appartiennent au champ interne de l’organisation propre de l’agent » (12 mars 2012).

Récemment, cependant, l’arrêt de la Cour suprême du 1er mars 2017 (confirmé par un autre du 19 mai 2017) considère que la détermination du montant de la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution ne peut pas être basée sur les  » marges brutes  » obtenues par le distributeur, mais dans la  » marge nette « . Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, la Cour se réfère à un arrêt de la même juridiction de 2016 et à d’autres de 2010 et 2007.

Cela implique-t-il un changement de jurisprudence ? À mon avis, cette lecture que fait la Cour suprême n’est pas correcte. Voyons pourquoi.

Dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la disjonction entre marge brute ou nette est mentionnée dans le deuxième argument juridique et renvoie à l’arrêt de 2016.

Dans cet arrêt de 2016 il a été retenu que même si un autre arrêt de 2010 n’a pas décidé si le calcul devait être fait sur les marges brutes ou nettes, dans un précédent arrêt de 2007, il a été admis que ce qui était similaire à la rémunération de l’agent était le bénéfice net obtenu par le distributeur (bénéfices une fois déduits les frais et les impôts) et non la marge qui est la différence entre les prix d’achat et de revente.

Or, à mon avis, dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la Cour suprême se réfère en dernière instance à l’arrêt 296/2007 pour quelque chose que ce dernier n’a pas dit. En 2007, la Cour Suprême n’a pas quantifié l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais plutôt les dommages et intérêts. Plus précisément, et après avoir affirmé que « l’indemnisation de la clientèle doit être demandée clairement dans le procès, sans confusion ni ambiguïté », la Cour a conclu que la Chambre « doit résoudre ce qui correspond aux termes dans lesquels le débat a été soulevé… dans le procès initial. Et puisque […] une indemnité de dommages-intérêts était intéressée principalement en fonction de la durée de la relation […] la solution plus adaptée à la jurisprudence de cette Cour […] consiste à fixer comme indemnité de dommages-intérêts un montant équivalent aux bénéfices nets qui [ont été] obtenus par la distribution des produits […] pendant l’année précédant immédiatement la fin du contrat « .

Par conséquent, dans cet arrêt de 2007, la Cour ne s’est pas prononcée sur l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais sur les dommages et intérêts.

De cette façon, la conclusion à laquelle on était parvenu en 2007 pour calculer l’indemnisation des dommages sur les marges nettes, a été transférée sans autre analyse en 2016 mais pour le calcul de l’indemnisation de la clientèle. Ce critère est maintenant réitéré dans les arrêts de 2017 de manière quasi automatique.

A mon avis, cependant, et malgré le changement jurisprudentiel, la thèse qui devrait prévaloir est que pour appliquer par analogie l’indemnité de clientèle dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur équivalente à la  » rémunération  » de l’agent est la  » marge brute  » obtenue par le distributeur et non sa  » marge nette  » : il n’est pas très logique que si l’on applique l’analogie pour reconnaître l’indemnité de clientèle à un distributeur, on la déduise des montants de ses marges brutes pour atteindre sa marge ou son bénéfice net. L’agent a aussi ses dépenses et paie aussi ses impôts à partir de ses « rémunérations » et rien dans la directive 86/653/CEE ni dans la loi sur le contrat d’agence ne permet de déduire de telles grandeurs pour calculer son indemnité de clientèle. A mon avis, donc, et dans le même ordre d’idées, les distributeurs devraient être égaux : les grandeurs qui pourraient être comparées devraient être les rétributions (brutes) de l’agent avec les marges (brutes) du distributeur (c’est-à-dire la différence entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente).

En conclusion, les jugements du 1er mars et du 19 mai 2017 insistent sur ce que je considère comme une erreur antérieure et génèrent une confusion supplémentaire à une question qui a déjà été discutée : l’application analogique de la rémunération de la clientèle aux contrats de distribution et la méthode de calcul.

 Avis de mise à jour (27 janvier 2020)

Dans une récente ordonnance ( » Auto « ) de la Cour Suprême du 20 novembre 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 d’irrecevabilité du recours), la Cour a eu l’occasion de revenir sur cette question et de confirmer les critères de la dernière jurisprudence : que dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur à considérer pour appliquer l’analogie et calculer l’indemnité de clientèle sont les  » marges nettes « .

Dans cette procédure, un distributeur a fait appel de la décision de la Cour provinciale de Barcelone qui a reconnu une indemnisation basée sur les marges nettes et non sur les marges brutes. Ledit distributeur a demandé à la Cour suprême d’annuler ledit jugement au motif qu’il a été pris en application de la dernière jurisprudence, erronée selon la précédente dans l’opinion de l’appelant.

La Cour suprême, cependant, semble confirmer que, contrairement à la thèse que j’ai défendue plus haut dans ce billet,  » il n’y a pas d’erreur alléguée dans la jurisprudence la plus récente dans l’interprétation analogique de l’art. 28.3 de la loi sur l’agence pour le contrat de distribution, ni, par conséquent, la nécessité de revoir la jurisprudence la plus récente en la matière « . Par conséquent, si la Cour Suprême ne révise pas sa jurisprudence la plus récente et considère que le jugement qui a appliqué les marges nettes était acceptable, nous devons considérer que la grandeur à considérer dans la compensation pour la clientèle dans les contrats de distribution est celle des marges nettes et non des marges brutes.

Avec cette décision, il semble (ou juste  » il semble  » ?), donc, que la Cour tranche la discussion qui, cependant et à mon avis, continuera néanmoins à susciter de nombreuses discussions.

Résumé

A la fin des contrats d’agence et de distribution, la principale source de conflit est l’indemnité de clientèle. La loi espagnole sur le contrat d’agence -comme la directive sur les agents commerciaux- prévoit que lorsque le contrat prend fin, l’agent aura droit, si certaines conditions sont remplies, à une indemnité. En Espagne, par analogie (mais avec des qualifications et des nuances), cette indemnité peut également être réclamée dans les contrats de distribution.

Pour que l’indemnité de clientèle soit reconnue, il est nécessaire que l’agent (ou le distributeur : voir ce post pour en savoir plus) ait apporté de nouveaux clients ou augmenté de manière significative les opérations avec les clients préexistants, que son activité puisse continuer à produire des bénéfices substantiels pour le commettant et qu’elle soit équitable. Tout cela conditionnera la reconnaissance du droit à l’indemnisation et son montant.

Ces expressions (nouveaux clients, augmentation significative, peut produire, avantages substantiels, équitable) sont difficiles à définir au préalable, c’est pourquoi, pour avoir du succès, il est recommandé que les demandes devant les tribunaux soient appuyées, au cas par cas, sur des rapports d’experts, supervisés par un avocat.

Il existe, du moins en Espagne, une tendance à réclamer directement le maximum prévu par la norme (une année de rémunération calculée comme la moyenne des cinq années précédentes) sans procéder à une analyse plus approfondie. Mais si cela est fait, il y a un risque que le juge rejette la requête comme non fondée.

Par conséquent, et sur la base de notre expérience, je trouve opportun de fournir des conseils sur la manière de mieux étayer la demande de cette indemnité et son montant.

L’agent/distributeur, l’expert et l’avocat devraient considérer les points suivants:

Vérifier quelle a été la contribution de l’agent

S’il y avait des clients avant le début du contrat et quel volume de ventes a été réalisé avec eux. Pour reconnaître cette compensation, il est nécessaire que l’agent ait augmenté le nombre de clients ou d’opérations avec des clients préexistants.

Analysez l’importance de ces clients lorsqu’il s’agit de continuer à fournir des prestations au mandant

Leur récurrence, leur fidélité (au mandant et non à l’agent), le taux de migration (combien d’entre eux resteront avec le mandant à la fin du contrat, ou avec l’agent). En effet, il sera difficile de parler de « clientèle » s’il n’y a eu que des clients sporadiques, occasionnels, non récurrents (ou peu) ou qui resteront fidèles à l’agent et non au mandant.

Comment l’agent opère-t-il à la fin du contrat?

Peut-il faire concurrence au commettant ou y a-t-il des restrictions dans le contrat ? Si l’agent peut continuer à servir les mêmes clients, mais pour un autre mandant, la rémunération pourrait être très discutée.

La rémunération est-elle équitable?

Examinez comment l’agent a agi dans le passé : s’il a rempli ses obligations, son travail lors de l’introduction des produits ou de l’ouverture du marché, l’évolution possible de ces produits ou services à l’avenir, etc.

L’agent perdra-t-il des commissions?

Ici, nous devons examiner s’il avait l’exclusivité ; sa plus ou moins grande facilité à obtenir un nouveau contrat (par exemple, en raison de son âge, de la crise économique, du type de produits, etc.) ou avec une nouvelle source de revenus, l’évolution des ventes au cours des dernières années (celles considérées pour la compensation), etc.

Quel est le maximum légal qui ne peut être dépassé?

La moyenne annuelle du montant perçu pendant la durée du contrat (ou 5 ans s’il a duré plus longtemps). Cela comprendra non seulement les commissions, mais aussi les montants fixes, les primes, les prix, etc. ou les marges dans le cas des distributeurs.

Enfin, il convient d’inclure tous les documents analysés dans le rapport d’expertise

Si cela n’est pas fait et qu’ils ne sont que mentionnés, cela pourrait avoir pour conséquence qu’ils ne soient pas pris en compte par un juge.

Consultez le guide pratique sur les agents de l’agence internationale

Pour en savoir plus sur les principales caractéristiques d’un contrat d’agence en Espagne, consultez notre Guide.

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.

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 Álvarez-Novoa

Domaines d'intervention

  • Art
  • Contrats
  • Entreprise
  • Recouvrement des crédits
  • Investissements étrangers
Contact Javier

Écrire à Javier





    Lire la politique de confidentialité de Legalmondo.
    Ce site est protégé par reCAPTCHA et les règles de confidentialité et les conditions d'utilisation de Google s'appliquent.

    Spain – Powers of Representation of Companies

    3 juin 2021

    • Espagne
    • Entreprise

    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.

    Selon la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour suprême espagnole, un distributeur peut avoir droit à une compensation pour la clientèle si l’article 28 de la loi sur les agences est appliqué par analogie (l' »idée inspiratrice« ). Cette compensation est calculée pour l’agent sur la base des rémunérations perçues au cours des cinq dernières années.

    Or, dans un contrat de distribution, il n’y a pas de « rémunérations » telles que celles perçues par l’agent (commissions, forfaits ou autres), mais des « marges commerciales » (différences entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente). La question est donc de savoir quelle grandeur il faut considérer pour la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution : soit la  » marge brute  » (la différence susmentionnée entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente), soit la  » marge nette  » (cette même différence mais en déduisant les autres frais et taxes dans lesquels le distributeur s’est engagé).

    La conclusion jusqu’à présent semblait être de calculer la rémunération du distributeur à partir de ses « marges brutes », car il s’agit d’une grandeur plus comparable à la « rémunération » de l’agent : les autres dépenses et impôts du distributeur ne pouvaient pas être déduits de la même manière que dans un contrat d’agence, ni les dépenses ni les impôts n’étaient déduits.

    La Cour suprême (17 novembre 1999) avait souligné que pour calculer la rémunération des clients « il est plus approprié de la considérer comme une contribution brute, car avec elle l’agent doit couvrir tous les débours de son organisation commerciale ». En outre, les « gains obtenus » « ne constituent pas une rémunération dans le même sens » (21 octobre 2008), étant donné que ces « avantages« , « appartiennent au champ interne de l’organisation propre de l’agent » (12 mars 2012).

    Récemment, cependant, l’arrêt de la Cour suprême du 1er mars 2017 (confirmé par un autre du 19 mai 2017) considère que la détermination du montant de la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution ne peut pas être basée sur les  » marges brutes  » obtenues par le distributeur, mais dans la  » marge nette « . Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, la Cour se réfère à un arrêt de la même juridiction de 2016 et à d’autres de 2010 et 2007.

    Cela implique-t-il un changement de jurisprudence ? À mon avis, cette lecture que fait la Cour suprême n’est pas correcte. Voyons pourquoi.

    Dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la disjonction entre marge brute ou nette est mentionnée dans le deuxième argument juridique et renvoie à l’arrêt de 2016.

    Dans cet arrêt de 2016 il a été retenu que même si un autre arrêt de 2010 n’a pas décidé si le calcul devait être fait sur les marges brutes ou nettes, dans un précédent arrêt de 2007, il a été admis que ce qui était similaire à la rémunération de l’agent était le bénéfice net obtenu par le distributeur (bénéfices une fois déduits les frais et les impôts) et non la marge qui est la différence entre les prix d’achat et de revente.

    Or, à mon avis, dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la Cour suprême se réfère en dernière instance à l’arrêt 296/2007 pour quelque chose que ce dernier n’a pas dit. En 2007, la Cour Suprême n’a pas quantifié l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais plutôt les dommages et intérêts. Plus précisément, et après avoir affirmé que « l’indemnisation de la clientèle doit être demandée clairement dans le procès, sans confusion ni ambiguïté », la Cour a conclu que la Chambre « doit résoudre ce qui correspond aux termes dans lesquels le débat a été soulevé… dans le procès initial. Et puisque […] une indemnité de dommages-intérêts était intéressée principalement en fonction de la durée de la relation […] la solution plus adaptée à la jurisprudence de cette Cour […] consiste à fixer comme indemnité de dommages-intérêts un montant équivalent aux bénéfices nets qui [ont été] obtenus par la distribution des produits […] pendant l’année précédant immédiatement la fin du contrat « .

    Par conséquent, dans cet arrêt de 2007, la Cour ne s’est pas prononcée sur l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais sur les dommages et intérêts.

    De cette façon, la conclusion à laquelle on était parvenu en 2007 pour calculer l’indemnisation des dommages sur les marges nettes, a été transférée sans autre analyse en 2016 mais pour le calcul de l’indemnisation de la clientèle. Ce critère est maintenant réitéré dans les arrêts de 2017 de manière quasi automatique.

    A mon avis, cependant, et malgré le changement jurisprudentiel, la thèse qui devrait prévaloir est que pour appliquer par analogie l’indemnité de clientèle dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur équivalente à la  » rémunération  » de l’agent est la  » marge brute  » obtenue par le distributeur et non sa  » marge nette  » : il n’est pas très logique que si l’on applique l’analogie pour reconnaître l’indemnité de clientèle à un distributeur, on la déduise des montants de ses marges brutes pour atteindre sa marge ou son bénéfice net. L’agent a aussi ses dépenses et paie aussi ses impôts à partir de ses « rémunérations » et rien dans la directive 86/653/CEE ni dans la loi sur le contrat d’agence ne permet de déduire de telles grandeurs pour calculer son indemnité de clientèle. A mon avis, donc, et dans le même ordre d’idées, les distributeurs devraient être égaux : les grandeurs qui pourraient être comparées devraient être les rétributions (brutes) de l’agent avec les marges (brutes) du distributeur (c’est-à-dire la différence entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente).

    En conclusion, les jugements du 1er mars et du 19 mai 2017 insistent sur ce que je considère comme une erreur antérieure et génèrent une confusion supplémentaire à une question qui a déjà été discutée : l’application analogique de la rémunération de la clientèle aux contrats de distribution et la méthode de calcul.

     Avis de mise à jour (27 janvier 2020)

    Dans une récente ordonnance ( » Auto « ) de la Cour Suprême du 20 novembre 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 d’irrecevabilité du recours), la Cour a eu l’occasion de revenir sur cette question et de confirmer les critères de la dernière jurisprudence : que dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur à considérer pour appliquer l’analogie et calculer l’indemnité de clientèle sont les  » marges nettes « .

    Dans cette procédure, un distributeur a fait appel de la décision de la Cour provinciale de Barcelone qui a reconnu une indemnisation basée sur les marges nettes et non sur les marges brutes. Ledit distributeur a demandé à la Cour suprême d’annuler ledit jugement au motif qu’il a été pris en application de la dernière jurisprudence, erronée selon la précédente dans l’opinion de l’appelant.

    La Cour suprême, cependant, semble confirmer que, contrairement à la thèse que j’ai défendue plus haut dans ce billet,  » il n’y a pas d’erreur alléguée dans la jurisprudence la plus récente dans l’interprétation analogique de l’art. 28.3 de la loi sur l’agence pour le contrat de distribution, ni, par conséquent, la nécessité de revoir la jurisprudence la plus récente en la matière « . Par conséquent, si la Cour Suprême ne révise pas sa jurisprudence la plus récente et considère que le jugement qui a appliqué les marges nettes était acceptable, nous devons considérer que la grandeur à considérer dans la compensation pour la clientèle dans les contrats de distribution est celle des marges nettes et non des marges brutes.

    Avec cette décision, il semble (ou juste  » il semble  » ?), donc, que la Cour tranche la discussion qui, cependant et à mon avis, continuera néanmoins à susciter de nombreuses discussions.

    Résumé

    A la fin des contrats d’agence et de distribution, la principale source de conflit est l’indemnité de clientèle. La loi espagnole sur le contrat d’agence -comme la directive sur les agents commerciaux- prévoit que lorsque le contrat prend fin, l’agent aura droit, si certaines conditions sont remplies, à une indemnité. En Espagne, par analogie (mais avec des qualifications et des nuances), cette indemnité peut également être réclamée dans les contrats de distribution.

    Pour que l’indemnité de clientèle soit reconnue, il est nécessaire que l’agent (ou le distributeur : voir ce post pour en savoir plus) ait apporté de nouveaux clients ou augmenté de manière significative les opérations avec les clients préexistants, que son activité puisse continuer à produire des bénéfices substantiels pour le commettant et qu’elle soit équitable. Tout cela conditionnera la reconnaissance du droit à l’indemnisation et son montant.

    Ces expressions (nouveaux clients, augmentation significative, peut produire, avantages substantiels, équitable) sont difficiles à définir au préalable, c’est pourquoi, pour avoir du succès, il est recommandé que les demandes devant les tribunaux soient appuyées, au cas par cas, sur des rapports d’experts, supervisés par un avocat.

    Il existe, du moins en Espagne, une tendance à réclamer directement le maximum prévu par la norme (une année de rémunération calculée comme la moyenne des cinq années précédentes) sans procéder à une analyse plus approfondie. Mais si cela est fait, il y a un risque que le juge rejette la requête comme non fondée.

    Par conséquent, et sur la base de notre expérience, je trouve opportun de fournir des conseils sur la manière de mieux étayer la demande de cette indemnité et son montant.

    L’agent/distributeur, l’expert et l’avocat devraient considérer les points suivants:

    Vérifier quelle a été la contribution de l’agent

    S’il y avait des clients avant le début du contrat et quel volume de ventes a été réalisé avec eux. Pour reconnaître cette compensation, il est nécessaire que l’agent ait augmenté le nombre de clients ou d’opérations avec des clients préexistants.

    Analysez l’importance de ces clients lorsqu’il s’agit de continuer à fournir des prestations au mandant

    Leur récurrence, leur fidélité (au mandant et non à l’agent), le taux de migration (combien d’entre eux resteront avec le mandant à la fin du contrat, ou avec l’agent). En effet, il sera difficile de parler de « clientèle » s’il n’y a eu que des clients sporadiques, occasionnels, non récurrents (ou peu) ou qui resteront fidèles à l’agent et non au mandant.

    Comment l’agent opère-t-il à la fin du contrat?

    Peut-il faire concurrence au commettant ou y a-t-il des restrictions dans le contrat ? Si l’agent peut continuer à servir les mêmes clients, mais pour un autre mandant, la rémunération pourrait être très discutée.

    La rémunération est-elle équitable?

    Examinez comment l’agent a agi dans le passé : s’il a rempli ses obligations, son travail lors de l’introduction des produits ou de l’ouverture du marché, l’évolution possible de ces produits ou services à l’avenir, etc.

    L’agent perdra-t-il des commissions?

    Ici, nous devons examiner s’il avait l’exclusivité ; sa plus ou moins grande facilité à obtenir un nouveau contrat (par exemple, en raison de son âge, de la crise économique, du type de produits, etc.) ou avec une nouvelle source de revenus, l’évolution des ventes au cours des dernières années (celles considérées pour la compensation), etc.

    Quel est le maximum légal qui ne peut être dépassé?

    La moyenne annuelle du montant perçu pendant la durée du contrat (ou 5 ans s’il a duré plus longtemps). Cela comprendra non seulement les commissions, mais aussi les montants fixes, les primes, les prix, etc. ou les marges dans le cas des distributeurs.

    Enfin, il convient d’inclure tous les documents analysés dans le rapport d’expertise

    Si cela n’est pas fait et qu’ils ne sont que mentionnés, cela pourrait avoir pour conséquence qu’ils ne soient pas pris en compte par un juge.

    Consultez le guide pratique sur les agents de l’agence internationale

    Pour en savoir plus sur les principales caractéristiques d’un contrat d’agence en Espagne, consultez notre Guide.

    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.

    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

    Domaines d'intervention

    • Agence
    • Entreprise
    • Distribution
    • Franchise
    Contact Ignacio

    Écrire à Ignacio





      Lire la politique de confidentialité de Legalmondo.
      Ce site est protégé par reCAPTCHA et les règles de confidentialité et les conditions d'utilisation de Google s'appliquent.

      Spain – Review of arbitration awards and public order

      17 mars 2021

      • Espagne
      • Arbitrage

      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.

      Selon la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour suprême espagnole, un distributeur peut avoir droit à une compensation pour la clientèle si l’article 28 de la loi sur les agences est appliqué par analogie (l' »idée inspiratrice« ). Cette compensation est calculée pour l’agent sur la base des rémunérations perçues au cours des cinq dernières années.

      Or, dans un contrat de distribution, il n’y a pas de « rémunérations » telles que celles perçues par l’agent (commissions, forfaits ou autres), mais des « marges commerciales » (différences entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente). La question est donc de savoir quelle grandeur il faut considérer pour la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution : soit la  » marge brute  » (la différence susmentionnée entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente), soit la  » marge nette  » (cette même différence mais en déduisant les autres frais et taxes dans lesquels le distributeur s’est engagé).

      La conclusion jusqu’à présent semblait être de calculer la rémunération du distributeur à partir de ses « marges brutes », car il s’agit d’une grandeur plus comparable à la « rémunération » de l’agent : les autres dépenses et impôts du distributeur ne pouvaient pas être déduits de la même manière que dans un contrat d’agence, ni les dépenses ni les impôts n’étaient déduits.

      La Cour suprême (17 novembre 1999) avait souligné que pour calculer la rémunération des clients « il est plus approprié de la considérer comme une contribution brute, car avec elle l’agent doit couvrir tous les débours de son organisation commerciale ». En outre, les « gains obtenus » « ne constituent pas une rémunération dans le même sens » (21 octobre 2008), étant donné que ces « avantages« , « appartiennent au champ interne de l’organisation propre de l’agent » (12 mars 2012).

      Récemment, cependant, l’arrêt de la Cour suprême du 1er mars 2017 (confirmé par un autre du 19 mai 2017) considère que la détermination du montant de la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution ne peut pas être basée sur les  » marges brutes  » obtenues par le distributeur, mais dans la  » marge nette « . Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, la Cour se réfère à un arrêt de la même juridiction de 2016 et à d’autres de 2010 et 2007.

      Cela implique-t-il un changement de jurisprudence ? À mon avis, cette lecture que fait la Cour suprême n’est pas correcte. Voyons pourquoi.

      Dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la disjonction entre marge brute ou nette est mentionnée dans le deuxième argument juridique et renvoie à l’arrêt de 2016.

      Dans cet arrêt de 2016 il a été retenu que même si un autre arrêt de 2010 n’a pas décidé si le calcul devait être fait sur les marges brutes ou nettes, dans un précédent arrêt de 2007, il a été admis que ce qui était similaire à la rémunération de l’agent était le bénéfice net obtenu par le distributeur (bénéfices une fois déduits les frais et les impôts) et non la marge qui est la différence entre les prix d’achat et de revente.

      Or, à mon avis, dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la Cour suprême se réfère en dernière instance à l’arrêt 296/2007 pour quelque chose que ce dernier n’a pas dit. En 2007, la Cour Suprême n’a pas quantifié l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais plutôt les dommages et intérêts. Plus précisément, et après avoir affirmé que « l’indemnisation de la clientèle doit être demandée clairement dans le procès, sans confusion ni ambiguïté », la Cour a conclu que la Chambre « doit résoudre ce qui correspond aux termes dans lesquels le débat a été soulevé… dans le procès initial. Et puisque […] une indemnité de dommages-intérêts était intéressée principalement en fonction de la durée de la relation […] la solution plus adaptée à la jurisprudence de cette Cour […] consiste à fixer comme indemnité de dommages-intérêts un montant équivalent aux bénéfices nets qui [ont été] obtenus par la distribution des produits […] pendant l’année précédant immédiatement la fin du contrat « .

      Par conséquent, dans cet arrêt de 2007, la Cour ne s’est pas prononcée sur l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais sur les dommages et intérêts.

      De cette façon, la conclusion à laquelle on était parvenu en 2007 pour calculer l’indemnisation des dommages sur les marges nettes, a été transférée sans autre analyse en 2016 mais pour le calcul de l’indemnisation de la clientèle. Ce critère est maintenant réitéré dans les arrêts de 2017 de manière quasi automatique.

      A mon avis, cependant, et malgré le changement jurisprudentiel, la thèse qui devrait prévaloir est que pour appliquer par analogie l’indemnité de clientèle dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur équivalente à la  » rémunération  » de l’agent est la  » marge brute  » obtenue par le distributeur et non sa  » marge nette  » : il n’est pas très logique que si l’on applique l’analogie pour reconnaître l’indemnité de clientèle à un distributeur, on la déduise des montants de ses marges brutes pour atteindre sa marge ou son bénéfice net. L’agent a aussi ses dépenses et paie aussi ses impôts à partir de ses « rémunérations » et rien dans la directive 86/653/CEE ni dans la loi sur le contrat d’agence ne permet de déduire de telles grandeurs pour calculer son indemnité de clientèle. A mon avis, donc, et dans le même ordre d’idées, les distributeurs devraient être égaux : les grandeurs qui pourraient être comparées devraient être les rétributions (brutes) de l’agent avec les marges (brutes) du distributeur (c’est-à-dire la différence entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente).

      En conclusion, les jugements du 1er mars et du 19 mai 2017 insistent sur ce que je considère comme une erreur antérieure et génèrent une confusion supplémentaire à une question qui a déjà été discutée : l’application analogique de la rémunération de la clientèle aux contrats de distribution et la méthode de calcul.

       Avis de mise à jour (27 janvier 2020)

      Dans une récente ordonnance ( » Auto « ) de la Cour Suprême du 20 novembre 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 d’irrecevabilité du recours), la Cour a eu l’occasion de revenir sur cette question et de confirmer les critères de la dernière jurisprudence : que dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur à considérer pour appliquer l’analogie et calculer l’indemnité de clientèle sont les  » marges nettes « .

      Dans cette procédure, un distributeur a fait appel de la décision de la Cour provinciale de Barcelone qui a reconnu une indemnisation basée sur les marges nettes et non sur les marges brutes. Ledit distributeur a demandé à la Cour suprême d’annuler ledit jugement au motif qu’il a été pris en application de la dernière jurisprudence, erronée selon la précédente dans l’opinion de l’appelant.

      La Cour suprême, cependant, semble confirmer que, contrairement à la thèse que j’ai défendue plus haut dans ce billet,  » il n’y a pas d’erreur alléguée dans la jurisprudence la plus récente dans l’interprétation analogique de l’art. 28.3 de la loi sur l’agence pour le contrat de distribution, ni, par conséquent, la nécessité de revoir la jurisprudence la plus récente en la matière « . Par conséquent, si la Cour Suprême ne révise pas sa jurisprudence la plus récente et considère que le jugement qui a appliqué les marges nettes était acceptable, nous devons considérer que la grandeur à considérer dans la compensation pour la clientèle dans les contrats de distribution est celle des marges nettes et non des marges brutes.

      Avec cette décision, il semble (ou juste  » il semble  » ?), donc, que la Cour tranche la discussion qui, cependant et à mon avis, continuera néanmoins à susciter de nombreuses discussions.

      Résumé

      A la fin des contrats d’agence et de distribution, la principale source de conflit est l’indemnité de clientèle. La loi espagnole sur le contrat d’agence -comme la directive sur les agents commerciaux- prévoit que lorsque le contrat prend fin, l’agent aura droit, si certaines conditions sont remplies, à une indemnité. En Espagne, par analogie (mais avec des qualifications et des nuances), cette indemnité peut également être réclamée dans les contrats de distribution.

      Pour que l’indemnité de clientèle soit reconnue, il est nécessaire que l’agent (ou le distributeur : voir ce post pour en savoir plus) ait apporté de nouveaux clients ou augmenté de manière significative les opérations avec les clients préexistants, que son activité puisse continuer à produire des bénéfices substantiels pour le commettant et qu’elle soit équitable. Tout cela conditionnera la reconnaissance du droit à l’indemnisation et son montant.

      Ces expressions (nouveaux clients, augmentation significative, peut produire, avantages substantiels, équitable) sont difficiles à définir au préalable, c’est pourquoi, pour avoir du succès, il est recommandé que les demandes devant les tribunaux soient appuyées, au cas par cas, sur des rapports d’experts, supervisés par un avocat.

      Il existe, du moins en Espagne, une tendance à réclamer directement le maximum prévu par la norme (une année de rémunération calculée comme la moyenne des cinq années précédentes) sans procéder à une analyse plus approfondie. Mais si cela est fait, il y a un risque que le juge rejette la requête comme non fondée.

      Par conséquent, et sur la base de notre expérience, je trouve opportun de fournir des conseils sur la manière de mieux étayer la demande de cette indemnité et son montant.

      L’agent/distributeur, l’expert et l’avocat devraient considérer les points suivants:

      Vérifier quelle a été la contribution de l’agent

      S’il y avait des clients avant le début du contrat et quel volume de ventes a été réalisé avec eux. Pour reconnaître cette compensation, il est nécessaire que l’agent ait augmenté le nombre de clients ou d’opérations avec des clients préexistants.

      Analysez l’importance de ces clients lorsqu’il s’agit de continuer à fournir des prestations au mandant

      Leur récurrence, leur fidélité (au mandant et non à l’agent), le taux de migration (combien d’entre eux resteront avec le mandant à la fin du contrat, ou avec l’agent). En effet, il sera difficile de parler de « clientèle » s’il n’y a eu que des clients sporadiques, occasionnels, non récurrents (ou peu) ou qui resteront fidèles à l’agent et non au mandant.

      Comment l’agent opère-t-il à la fin du contrat?

      Peut-il faire concurrence au commettant ou y a-t-il des restrictions dans le contrat ? Si l’agent peut continuer à servir les mêmes clients, mais pour un autre mandant, la rémunération pourrait être très discutée.

      La rémunération est-elle équitable?

      Examinez comment l’agent a agi dans le passé : s’il a rempli ses obligations, son travail lors de l’introduction des produits ou de l’ouverture du marché, l’évolution possible de ces produits ou services à l’avenir, etc.

      L’agent perdra-t-il des commissions?

      Ici, nous devons examiner s’il avait l’exclusivité ; sa plus ou moins grande facilité à obtenir un nouveau contrat (par exemple, en raison de son âge, de la crise économique, du type de produits, etc.) ou avec une nouvelle source de revenus, l’évolution des ventes au cours des dernières années (celles considérées pour la compensation), etc.

      Quel est le maximum légal qui ne peut être dépassé?

      La moyenne annuelle du montant perçu pendant la durée du contrat (ou 5 ans s’il a duré plus longtemps). Cela comprendra non seulement les commissions, mais aussi les montants fixes, les primes, les prix, etc. ou les marges dans le cas des distributeurs.

      Enfin, il convient d’inclure tous les documents analysés dans le rapport d’expertise

      Si cela n’est pas fait et qu’ils ne sont que mentionnés, cela pourrait avoir pour conséquence qu’ils ne soient pas pris en compte par un juge.

      Consultez le guide pratique sur les agents de l’agence internationale

      Pour en savoir plus sur les principales caractéristiques d’un contrat d’agence en Espagne, consultez notre Guide.

      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.

      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

      Domaines d'intervention

      • Arbitrage
      • Distribution
      • Franchise
      • Litiges
      • Sport
      Contact Javier

      Écrire à Javier





        Lire la politique de confidentialité de Legalmondo.
        Ce site est protégé par reCAPTCHA et les règles de confidentialité et les conditions d'utilisation de Google s'appliquent.

        International debt recovery: risk prevention and best practices

        7 décembre 2020

        • Espagne
        • Distribution
        • Litiges

        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.

        Selon la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour suprême espagnole, un distributeur peut avoir droit à une compensation pour la clientèle si l’article 28 de la loi sur les agences est appliqué par analogie (l' »idée inspiratrice« ). Cette compensation est calculée pour l’agent sur la base des rémunérations perçues au cours des cinq dernières années.

        Or, dans un contrat de distribution, il n’y a pas de « rémunérations » telles que celles perçues par l’agent (commissions, forfaits ou autres), mais des « marges commerciales » (différences entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente). La question est donc de savoir quelle grandeur il faut considérer pour la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution : soit la  » marge brute  » (la différence susmentionnée entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente), soit la  » marge nette  » (cette même différence mais en déduisant les autres frais et taxes dans lesquels le distributeur s’est engagé).

        La conclusion jusqu’à présent semblait être de calculer la rémunération du distributeur à partir de ses « marges brutes », car il s’agit d’une grandeur plus comparable à la « rémunération » de l’agent : les autres dépenses et impôts du distributeur ne pouvaient pas être déduits de la même manière que dans un contrat d’agence, ni les dépenses ni les impôts n’étaient déduits.

        La Cour suprême (17 novembre 1999) avait souligné que pour calculer la rémunération des clients « il est plus approprié de la considérer comme une contribution brute, car avec elle l’agent doit couvrir tous les débours de son organisation commerciale ». En outre, les « gains obtenus » « ne constituent pas une rémunération dans le même sens » (21 octobre 2008), étant donné que ces « avantages« , « appartiennent au champ interne de l’organisation propre de l’agent » (12 mars 2012).

        Récemment, cependant, l’arrêt de la Cour suprême du 1er mars 2017 (confirmé par un autre du 19 mai 2017) considère que la détermination du montant de la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution ne peut pas être basée sur les  » marges brutes  » obtenues par le distributeur, mais dans la  » marge nette « . Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, la Cour se réfère à un arrêt de la même juridiction de 2016 et à d’autres de 2010 et 2007.

        Cela implique-t-il un changement de jurisprudence ? À mon avis, cette lecture que fait la Cour suprême n’est pas correcte. Voyons pourquoi.

        Dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la disjonction entre marge brute ou nette est mentionnée dans le deuxième argument juridique et renvoie à l’arrêt de 2016.

        Dans cet arrêt de 2016 il a été retenu que même si un autre arrêt de 2010 n’a pas décidé si le calcul devait être fait sur les marges brutes ou nettes, dans un précédent arrêt de 2007, il a été admis que ce qui était similaire à la rémunération de l’agent était le bénéfice net obtenu par le distributeur (bénéfices une fois déduits les frais et les impôts) et non la marge qui est la différence entre les prix d’achat et de revente.

        Or, à mon avis, dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la Cour suprême se réfère en dernière instance à l’arrêt 296/2007 pour quelque chose que ce dernier n’a pas dit. En 2007, la Cour Suprême n’a pas quantifié l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais plutôt les dommages et intérêts. Plus précisément, et après avoir affirmé que « l’indemnisation de la clientèle doit être demandée clairement dans le procès, sans confusion ni ambiguïté », la Cour a conclu que la Chambre « doit résoudre ce qui correspond aux termes dans lesquels le débat a été soulevé… dans le procès initial. Et puisque […] une indemnité de dommages-intérêts était intéressée principalement en fonction de la durée de la relation […] la solution plus adaptée à la jurisprudence de cette Cour […] consiste à fixer comme indemnité de dommages-intérêts un montant équivalent aux bénéfices nets qui [ont été] obtenus par la distribution des produits […] pendant l’année précédant immédiatement la fin du contrat « .

        Par conséquent, dans cet arrêt de 2007, la Cour ne s’est pas prononcée sur l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais sur les dommages et intérêts.

        De cette façon, la conclusion à laquelle on était parvenu en 2007 pour calculer l’indemnisation des dommages sur les marges nettes, a été transférée sans autre analyse en 2016 mais pour le calcul de l’indemnisation de la clientèle. Ce critère est maintenant réitéré dans les arrêts de 2017 de manière quasi automatique.

        A mon avis, cependant, et malgré le changement jurisprudentiel, la thèse qui devrait prévaloir est que pour appliquer par analogie l’indemnité de clientèle dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur équivalente à la  » rémunération  » de l’agent est la  » marge brute  » obtenue par le distributeur et non sa  » marge nette  » : il n’est pas très logique que si l’on applique l’analogie pour reconnaître l’indemnité de clientèle à un distributeur, on la déduise des montants de ses marges brutes pour atteindre sa marge ou son bénéfice net. L’agent a aussi ses dépenses et paie aussi ses impôts à partir de ses « rémunérations » et rien dans la directive 86/653/CEE ni dans la loi sur le contrat d’agence ne permet de déduire de telles grandeurs pour calculer son indemnité de clientèle. A mon avis, donc, et dans le même ordre d’idées, les distributeurs devraient être égaux : les grandeurs qui pourraient être comparées devraient être les rétributions (brutes) de l’agent avec les marges (brutes) du distributeur (c’est-à-dire la différence entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente).

        En conclusion, les jugements du 1er mars et du 19 mai 2017 insistent sur ce que je considère comme une erreur antérieure et génèrent une confusion supplémentaire à une question qui a déjà été discutée : l’application analogique de la rémunération de la clientèle aux contrats de distribution et la méthode de calcul.

         Avis de mise à jour (27 janvier 2020)

        Dans une récente ordonnance ( » Auto « ) de la Cour Suprême du 20 novembre 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 d’irrecevabilité du recours), la Cour a eu l’occasion de revenir sur cette question et de confirmer les critères de la dernière jurisprudence : que dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur à considérer pour appliquer l’analogie et calculer l’indemnité de clientèle sont les  » marges nettes « .

        Dans cette procédure, un distributeur a fait appel de la décision de la Cour provinciale de Barcelone qui a reconnu une indemnisation basée sur les marges nettes et non sur les marges brutes. Ledit distributeur a demandé à la Cour suprême d’annuler ledit jugement au motif qu’il a été pris en application de la dernière jurisprudence, erronée selon la précédente dans l’opinion de l’appelant.

        La Cour suprême, cependant, semble confirmer que, contrairement à la thèse que j’ai défendue plus haut dans ce billet,  » il n’y a pas d’erreur alléguée dans la jurisprudence la plus récente dans l’interprétation analogique de l’art. 28.3 de la loi sur l’agence pour le contrat de distribution, ni, par conséquent, la nécessité de revoir la jurisprudence la plus récente en la matière « . Par conséquent, si la Cour Suprême ne révise pas sa jurisprudence la plus récente et considère que le jugement qui a appliqué les marges nettes était acceptable, nous devons considérer que la grandeur à considérer dans la compensation pour la clientèle dans les contrats de distribution est celle des marges nettes et non des marges brutes.

        Avec cette décision, il semble (ou juste  » il semble  » ?), donc, que la Cour tranche la discussion qui, cependant et à mon avis, continuera néanmoins à susciter de nombreuses discussions.

        Résumé

        A la fin des contrats d’agence et de distribution, la principale source de conflit est l’indemnité de clientèle. La loi espagnole sur le contrat d’agence -comme la directive sur les agents commerciaux- prévoit que lorsque le contrat prend fin, l’agent aura droit, si certaines conditions sont remplies, à une indemnité. En Espagne, par analogie (mais avec des qualifications et des nuances), cette indemnité peut également être réclamée dans les contrats de distribution.

        Pour que l’indemnité de clientèle soit reconnue, il est nécessaire que l’agent (ou le distributeur : voir ce post pour en savoir plus) ait apporté de nouveaux clients ou augmenté de manière significative les opérations avec les clients préexistants, que son activité puisse continuer à produire des bénéfices substantiels pour le commettant et qu’elle soit équitable. Tout cela conditionnera la reconnaissance du droit à l’indemnisation et son montant.

        Ces expressions (nouveaux clients, augmentation significative, peut produire, avantages substantiels, équitable) sont difficiles à définir au préalable, c’est pourquoi, pour avoir du succès, il est recommandé que les demandes devant les tribunaux soient appuyées, au cas par cas, sur des rapports d’experts, supervisés par un avocat.

        Il existe, du moins en Espagne, une tendance à réclamer directement le maximum prévu par la norme (une année de rémunération calculée comme la moyenne des cinq années précédentes) sans procéder à une analyse plus approfondie. Mais si cela est fait, il y a un risque que le juge rejette la requête comme non fondée.

        Par conséquent, et sur la base de notre expérience, je trouve opportun de fournir des conseils sur la manière de mieux étayer la demande de cette indemnité et son montant.

        L’agent/distributeur, l’expert et l’avocat devraient considérer les points suivants:

        Vérifier quelle a été la contribution de l’agent

        S’il y avait des clients avant le début du contrat et quel volume de ventes a été réalisé avec eux. Pour reconnaître cette compensation, il est nécessaire que l’agent ait augmenté le nombre de clients ou d’opérations avec des clients préexistants.

        Analysez l’importance de ces clients lorsqu’il s’agit de continuer à fournir des prestations au mandant

        Leur récurrence, leur fidélité (au mandant et non à l’agent), le taux de migration (combien d’entre eux resteront avec le mandant à la fin du contrat, ou avec l’agent). En effet, il sera difficile de parler de « clientèle » s’il n’y a eu que des clients sporadiques, occasionnels, non récurrents (ou peu) ou qui resteront fidèles à l’agent et non au mandant.

        Comment l’agent opère-t-il à la fin du contrat?

        Peut-il faire concurrence au commettant ou y a-t-il des restrictions dans le contrat ? Si l’agent peut continuer à servir les mêmes clients, mais pour un autre mandant, la rémunération pourrait être très discutée.

        La rémunération est-elle équitable?

        Examinez comment l’agent a agi dans le passé : s’il a rempli ses obligations, son travail lors de l’introduction des produits ou de l’ouverture du marché, l’évolution possible de ces produits ou services à l’avenir, etc.

        L’agent perdra-t-il des commissions?

        Ici, nous devons examiner s’il avait l’exclusivité ; sa plus ou moins grande facilité à obtenir un nouveau contrat (par exemple, en raison de son âge, de la crise économique, du type de produits, etc.) ou avec une nouvelle source de revenus, l’évolution des ventes au cours des dernières années (celles considérées pour la compensation), etc.

        Quel est le maximum légal qui ne peut être dépassé?

        La moyenne annuelle du montant perçu pendant la durée du contrat (ou 5 ans s’il a duré plus longtemps). Cela comprendra non seulement les commissions, mais aussi les montants fixes, les primes, les prix, etc. ou les marges dans le cas des distributeurs.

        Enfin, il convient d’inclure tous les documents analysés dans le rapport d’expertise

        Si cela n’est pas fait et qu’ils ne sont que mentionnés, cela pourrait avoir pour conséquence qu’ils ne soient pas pris en compte par un juge.

        Consultez le guide pratique sur les agents de l’agence internationale

        Pour en savoir plus sur les principales caractéristiques d’un contrat d’agence en Espagne, consultez notre Guide.

        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.

        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

        Domaines d'intervention

        • Agence
        • Entreprise
        • Distribution
        • Franchise
        Contact Ignacio

        Écrire à Ignacio





          Lire la politique de confidentialité de Legalmondo.
          Ce site est protégé par reCAPTCHA et les règles de confidentialité et les conditions d'utilisation de Google s'appliquent.

          Spain – New laws on equal pay and equality plans

          30 novembre 2020

          • Espagne
          • Entreprise
          • Travail

          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.

          Selon la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour suprême espagnole, un distributeur peut avoir droit à une compensation pour la clientèle si l’article 28 de la loi sur les agences est appliqué par analogie (l' »idée inspiratrice« ). Cette compensation est calculée pour l’agent sur la base des rémunérations perçues au cours des cinq dernières années.

          Or, dans un contrat de distribution, il n’y a pas de « rémunérations » telles que celles perçues par l’agent (commissions, forfaits ou autres), mais des « marges commerciales » (différences entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente). La question est donc de savoir quelle grandeur il faut considérer pour la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution : soit la  » marge brute  » (la différence susmentionnée entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente), soit la  » marge nette  » (cette même différence mais en déduisant les autres frais et taxes dans lesquels le distributeur s’est engagé).

          La conclusion jusqu’à présent semblait être de calculer la rémunération du distributeur à partir de ses « marges brutes », car il s’agit d’une grandeur plus comparable à la « rémunération » de l’agent : les autres dépenses et impôts du distributeur ne pouvaient pas être déduits de la même manière que dans un contrat d’agence, ni les dépenses ni les impôts n’étaient déduits.

          La Cour suprême (17 novembre 1999) avait souligné que pour calculer la rémunération des clients « il est plus approprié de la considérer comme une contribution brute, car avec elle l’agent doit couvrir tous les débours de son organisation commerciale ». En outre, les « gains obtenus » « ne constituent pas une rémunération dans le même sens » (21 octobre 2008), étant donné que ces « avantages« , « appartiennent au champ interne de l’organisation propre de l’agent » (12 mars 2012).

          Récemment, cependant, l’arrêt de la Cour suprême du 1er mars 2017 (confirmé par un autre du 19 mai 2017) considère que la détermination du montant de la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution ne peut pas être basée sur les  » marges brutes  » obtenues par le distributeur, mais dans la  » marge nette « . Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, la Cour se réfère à un arrêt de la même juridiction de 2016 et à d’autres de 2010 et 2007.

          Cela implique-t-il un changement de jurisprudence ? À mon avis, cette lecture que fait la Cour suprême n’est pas correcte. Voyons pourquoi.

          Dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la disjonction entre marge brute ou nette est mentionnée dans le deuxième argument juridique et renvoie à l’arrêt de 2016.

          Dans cet arrêt de 2016 il a été retenu que même si un autre arrêt de 2010 n’a pas décidé si le calcul devait être fait sur les marges brutes ou nettes, dans un précédent arrêt de 2007, il a été admis que ce qui était similaire à la rémunération de l’agent était le bénéfice net obtenu par le distributeur (bénéfices une fois déduits les frais et les impôts) et non la marge qui est la différence entre les prix d’achat et de revente.

          Or, à mon avis, dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la Cour suprême se réfère en dernière instance à l’arrêt 296/2007 pour quelque chose que ce dernier n’a pas dit. En 2007, la Cour Suprême n’a pas quantifié l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais plutôt les dommages et intérêts. Plus précisément, et après avoir affirmé que « l’indemnisation de la clientèle doit être demandée clairement dans le procès, sans confusion ni ambiguïté », la Cour a conclu que la Chambre « doit résoudre ce qui correspond aux termes dans lesquels le débat a été soulevé… dans le procès initial. Et puisque […] une indemnité de dommages-intérêts était intéressée principalement en fonction de la durée de la relation […] la solution plus adaptée à la jurisprudence de cette Cour […] consiste à fixer comme indemnité de dommages-intérêts un montant équivalent aux bénéfices nets qui [ont été] obtenus par la distribution des produits […] pendant l’année précédant immédiatement la fin du contrat « .

          Par conséquent, dans cet arrêt de 2007, la Cour ne s’est pas prononcée sur l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais sur les dommages et intérêts.

          De cette façon, la conclusion à laquelle on était parvenu en 2007 pour calculer l’indemnisation des dommages sur les marges nettes, a été transférée sans autre analyse en 2016 mais pour le calcul de l’indemnisation de la clientèle. Ce critère est maintenant réitéré dans les arrêts de 2017 de manière quasi automatique.

          A mon avis, cependant, et malgré le changement jurisprudentiel, la thèse qui devrait prévaloir est que pour appliquer par analogie l’indemnité de clientèle dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur équivalente à la  » rémunération  » de l’agent est la  » marge brute  » obtenue par le distributeur et non sa  » marge nette  » : il n’est pas très logique que si l’on applique l’analogie pour reconnaître l’indemnité de clientèle à un distributeur, on la déduise des montants de ses marges brutes pour atteindre sa marge ou son bénéfice net. L’agent a aussi ses dépenses et paie aussi ses impôts à partir de ses « rémunérations » et rien dans la directive 86/653/CEE ni dans la loi sur le contrat d’agence ne permet de déduire de telles grandeurs pour calculer son indemnité de clientèle. A mon avis, donc, et dans le même ordre d’idées, les distributeurs devraient être égaux : les grandeurs qui pourraient être comparées devraient être les rétributions (brutes) de l’agent avec les marges (brutes) du distributeur (c’est-à-dire la différence entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente).

          En conclusion, les jugements du 1er mars et du 19 mai 2017 insistent sur ce que je considère comme une erreur antérieure et génèrent une confusion supplémentaire à une question qui a déjà été discutée : l’application analogique de la rémunération de la clientèle aux contrats de distribution et la méthode de calcul.

           Avis de mise à jour (27 janvier 2020)

          Dans une récente ordonnance ( » Auto « ) de la Cour Suprême du 20 novembre 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 d’irrecevabilité du recours), la Cour a eu l’occasion de revenir sur cette question et de confirmer les critères de la dernière jurisprudence : que dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur à considérer pour appliquer l’analogie et calculer l’indemnité de clientèle sont les  » marges nettes « .

          Dans cette procédure, un distributeur a fait appel de la décision de la Cour provinciale de Barcelone qui a reconnu une indemnisation basée sur les marges nettes et non sur les marges brutes. Ledit distributeur a demandé à la Cour suprême d’annuler ledit jugement au motif qu’il a été pris en application de la dernière jurisprudence, erronée selon la précédente dans l’opinion de l’appelant.

          La Cour suprême, cependant, semble confirmer que, contrairement à la thèse que j’ai défendue plus haut dans ce billet,  » il n’y a pas d’erreur alléguée dans la jurisprudence la plus récente dans l’interprétation analogique de l’art. 28.3 de la loi sur l’agence pour le contrat de distribution, ni, par conséquent, la nécessité de revoir la jurisprudence la plus récente en la matière « . Par conséquent, si la Cour Suprême ne révise pas sa jurisprudence la plus récente et considère que le jugement qui a appliqué les marges nettes était acceptable, nous devons considérer que la grandeur à considérer dans la compensation pour la clientèle dans les contrats de distribution est celle des marges nettes et non des marges brutes.

          Avec cette décision, il semble (ou juste  » il semble  » ?), donc, que la Cour tranche la discussion qui, cependant et à mon avis, continuera néanmoins à susciter de nombreuses discussions.

          Résumé

          A la fin des contrats d’agence et de distribution, la principale source de conflit est l’indemnité de clientèle. La loi espagnole sur le contrat d’agence -comme la directive sur les agents commerciaux- prévoit que lorsque le contrat prend fin, l’agent aura droit, si certaines conditions sont remplies, à une indemnité. En Espagne, par analogie (mais avec des qualifications et des nuances), cette indemnité peut également être réclamée dans les contrats de distribution.

          Pour que l’indemnité de clientèle soit reconnue, il est nécessaire que l’agent (ou le distributeur : voir ce post pour en savoir plus) ait apporté de nouveaux clients ou augmenté de manière significative les opérations avec les clients préexistants, que son activité puisse continuer à produire des bénéfices substantiels pour le commettant et qu’elle soit équitable. Tout cela conditionnera la reconnaissance du droit à l’indemnisation et son montant.

          Ces expressions (nouveaux clients, augmentation significative, peut produire, avantages substantiels, équitable) sont difficiles à définir au préalable, c’est pourquoi, pour avoir du succès, il est recommandé que les demandes devant les tribunaux soient appuyées, au cas par cas, sur des rapports d’experts, supervisés par un avocat.

          Il existe, du moins en Espagne, une tendance à réclamer directement le maximum prévu par la norme (une année de rémunération calculée comme la moyenne des cinq années précédentes) sans procéder à une analyse plus approfondie. Mais si cela est fait, il y a un risque que le juge rejette la requête comme non fondée.

          Par conséquent, et sur la base de notre expérience, je trouve opportun de fournir des conseils sur la manière de mieux étayer la demande de cette indemnité et son montant.

          L’agent/distributeur, l’expert et l’avocat devraient considérer les points suivants:

          Vérifier quelle a été la contribution de l’agent

          S’il y avait des clients avant le début du contrat et quel volume de ventes a été réalisé avec eux. Pour reconnaître cette compensation, il est nécessaire que l’agent ait augmenté le nombre de clients ou d’opérations avec des clients préexistants.

          Analysez l’importance de ces clients lorsqu’il s’agit de continuer à fournir des prestations au mandant

          Leur récurrence, leur fidélité (au mandant et non à l’agent), le taux de migration (combien d’entre eux resteront avec le mandant à la fin du contrat, ou avec l’agent). En effet, il sera difficile de parler de « clientèle » s’il n’y a eu que des clients sporadiques, occasionnels, non récurrents (ou peu) ou qui resteront fidèles à l’agent et non au mandant.

          Comment l’agent opère-t-il à la fin du contrat?

          Peut-il faire concurrence au commettant ou y a-t-il des restrictions dans le contrat ? Si l’agent peut continuer à servir les mêmes clients, mais pour un autre mandant, la rémunération pourrait être très discutée.

          La rémunération est-elle équitable?

          Examinez comment l’agent a agi dans le passé : s’il a rempli ses obligations, son travail lors de l’introduction des produits ou de l’ouverture du marché, l’évolution possible de ces produits ou services à l’avenir, etc.

          L’agent perdra-t-il des commissions?

          Ici, nous devons examiner s’il avait l’exclusivité ; sa plus ou moins grande facilité à obtenir un nouveau contrat (par exemple, en raison de son âge, de la crise économique, du type de produits, etc.) ou avec une nouvelle source de revenus, l’évolution des ventes au cours des dernières années (celles considérées pour la compensation), etc.

          Quel est le maximum légal qui ne peut être dépassé?

          La moyenne annuelle du montant perçu pendant la durée du contrat (ou 5 ans s’il a duré plus longtemps). Cela comprendra non seulement les commissions, mais aussi les montants fixes, les primes, les prix, etc. ou les marges dans le cas des distributeurs.

          Enfin, il convient d’inclure tous les documents analysés dans le rapport d’expertise

          Si cela n’est pas fait et qu’ils ne sont que mentionnés, cela pourrait avoir pour conséquence qu’ils ne soient pas pris en compte par un juge.

          Consultez le guide pratique sur les agents de l’agence internationale

          Pour en savoir plus sur les principales caractéristiques d’un contrat d’agence en Espagne, consultez notre Guide.

          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.

          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

          Domaines d'intervention

          • Arbitrage
          • Distribution
          • Franchise
          • Litiges
          • Sport
          Contact Javier

          Écrire à Javier





            Lire la politique de confidentialité de Legalmondo.
            Ce site est protégé par reCAPTCHA et les règles de confidentialité et les conditions d'utilisation de Google s'appliquent.

            Spain – The Supreme Court concludes that the « riders » are false self-employed

            17 octobre 2020

            • Espagne
            • Travail

            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.

            Selon la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour suprême espagnole, un distributeur peut avoir droit à une compensation pour la clientèle si l’article 28 de la loi sur les agences est appliqué par analogie (l' »idée inspiratrice« ). Cette compensation est calculée pour l’agent sur la base des rémunérations perçues au cours des cinq dernières années.

            Or, dans un contrat de distribution, il n’y a pas de « rémunérations » telles que celles perçues par l’agent (commissions, forfaits ou autres), mais des « marges commerciales » (différences entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente). La question est donc de savoir quelle grandeur il faut considérer pour la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution : soit la  » marge brute  » (la différence susmentionnée entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente), soit la  » marge nette  » (cette même différence mais en déduisant les autres frais et taxes dans lesquels le distributeur s’est engagé).

            La conclusion jusqu’à présent semblait être de calculer la rémunération du distributeur à partir de ses « marges brutes », car il s’agit d’une grandeur plus comparable à la « rémunération » de l’agent : les autres dépenses et impôts du distributeur ne pouvaient pas être déduits de la même manière que dans un contrat d’agence, ni les dépenses ni les impôts n’étaient déduits.

            La Cour suprême (17 novembre 1999) avait souligné que pour calculer la rémunération des clients « il est plus approprié de la considérer comme une contribution brute, car avec elle l’agent doit couvrir tous les débours de son organisation commerciale ». En outre, les « gains obtenus » « ne constituent pas une rémunération dans le même sens » (21 octobre 2008), étant donné que ces « avantages« , « appartiennent au champ interne de l’organisation propre de l’agent » (12 mars 2012).

            Récemment, cependant, l’arrêt de la Cour suprême du 1er mars 2017 (confirmé par un autre du 19 mai 2017) considère que la détermination du montant de la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution ne peut pas être basée sur les  » marges brutes  » obtenues par le distributeur, mais dans la  » marge nette « . Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, la Cour se réfère à un arrêt de la même juridiction de 2016 et à d’autres de 2010 et 2007.

            Cela implique-t-il un changement de jurisprudence ? À mon avis, cette lecture que fait la Cour suprême n’est pas correcte. Voyons pourquoi.

            Dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la disjonction entre marge brute ou nette est mentionnée dans le deuxième argument juridique et renvoie à l’arrêt de 2016.

            Dans cet arrêt de 2016 il a été retenu que même si un autre arrêt de 2010 n’a pas décidé si le calcul devait être fait sur les marges brutes ou nettes, dans un précédent arrêt de 2007, il a été admis que ce qui était similaire à la rémunération de l’agent était le bénéfice net obtenu par le distributeur (bénéfices une fois déduits les frais et les impôts) et non la marge qui est la différence entre les prix d’achat et de revente.

            Or, à mon avis, dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la Cour suprême se réfère en dernière instance à l’arrêt 296/2007 pour quelque chose que ce dernier n’a pas dit. En 2007, la Cour Suprême n’a pas quantifié l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais plutôt les dommages et intérêts. Plus précisément, et après avoir affirmé que « l’indemnisation de la clientèle doit être demandée clairement dans le procès, sans confusion ni ambiguïté », la Cour a conclu que la Chambre « doit résoudre ce qui correspond aux termes dans lesquels le débat a été soulevé… dans le procès initial. Et puisque […] une indemnité de dommages-intérêts était intéressée principalement en fonction de la durée de la relation […] la solution plus adaptée à la jurisprudence de cette Cour […] consiste à fixer comme indemnité de dommages-intérêts un montant équivalent aux bénéfices nets qui [ont été] obtenus par la distribution des produits […] pendant l’année précédant immédiatement la fin du contrat « .

            Par conséquent, dans cet arrêt de 2007, la Cour ne s’est pas prononcée sur l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais sur les dommages et intérêts.

            De cette façon, la conclusion à laquelle on était parvenu en 2007 pour calculer l’indemnisation des dommages sur les marges nettes, a été transférée sans autre analyse en 2016 mais pour le calcul de l’indemnisation de la clientèle. Ce critère est maintenant réitéré dans les arrêts de 2017 de manière quasi automatique.

            A mon avis, cependant, et malgré le changement jurisprudentiel, la thèse qui devrait prévaloir est que pour appliquer par analogie l’indemnité de clientèle dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur équivalente à la  » rémunération  » de l’agent est la  » marge brute  » obtenue par le distributeur et non sa  » marge nette  » : il n’est pas très logique que si l’on applique l’analogie pour reconnaître l’indemnité de clientèle à un distributeur, on la déduise des montants de ses marges brutes pour atteindre sa marge ou son bénéfice net. L’agent a aussi ses dépenses et paie aussi ses impôts à partir de ses « rémunérations » et rien dans la directive 86/653/CEE ni dans la loi sur le contrat d’agence ne permet de déduire de telles grandeurs pour calculer son indemnité de clientèle. A mon avis, donc, et dans le même ordre d’idées, les distributeurs devraient être égaux : les grandeurs qui pourraient être comparées devraient être les rétributions (brutes) de l’agent avec les marges (brutes) du distributeur (c’est-à-dire la différence entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente).

            En conclusion, les jugements du 1er mars et du 19 mai 2017 insistent sur ce que je considère comme une erreur antérieure et génèrent une confusion supplémentaire à une question qui a déjà été discutée : l’application analogique de la rémunération de la clientèle aux contrats de distribution et la méthode de calcul.

             Avis de mise à jour (27 janvier 2020)

            Dans une récente ordonnance ( » Auto « ) de la Cour Suprême du 20 novembre 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 d’irrecevabilité du recours), la Cour a eu l’occasion de revenir sur cette question et de confirmer les critères de la dernière jurisprudence : que dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur à considérer pour appliquer l’analogie et calculer l’indemnité de clientèle sont les  » marges nettes « .

            Dans cette procédure, un distributeur a fait appel de la décision de la Cour provinciale de Barcelone qui a reconnu une indemnisation basée sur les marges nettes et non sur les marges brutes. Ledit distributeur a demandé à la Cour suprême d’annuler ledit jugement au motif qu’il a été pris en application de la dernière jurisprudence, erronée selon la précédente dans l’opinion de l’appelant.

            La Cour suprême, cependant, semble confirmer que, contrairement à la thèse que j’ai défendue plus haut dans ce billet,  » il n’y a pas d’erreur alléguée dans la jurisprudence la plus récente dans l’interprétation analogique de l’art. 28.3 de la loi sur l’agence pour le contrat de distribution, ni, par conséquent, la nécessité de revoir la jurisprudence la plus récente en la matière « . Par conséquent, si la Cour Suprême ne révise pas sa jurisprudence la plus récente et considère que le jugement qui a appliqué les marges nettes était acceptable, nous devons considérer que la grandeur à considérer dans la compensation pour la clientèle dans les contrats de distribution est celle des marges nettes et non des marges brutes.

            Avec cette décision, il semble (ou juste  » il semble  » ?), donc, que la Cour tranche la discussion qui, cependant et à mon avis, continuera néanmoins à susciter de nombreuses discussions.

            Résumé

            A la fin des contrats d’agence et de distribution, la principale source de conflit est l’indemnité de clientèle. La loi espagnole sur le contrat d’agence -comme la directive sur les agents commerciaux- prévoit que lorsque le contrat prend fin, l’agent aura droit, si certaines conditions sont remplies, à une indemnité. En Espagne, par analogie (mais avec des qualifications et des nuances), cette indemnité peut également être réclamée dans les contrats de distribution.

            Pour que l’indemnité de clientèle soit reconnue, il est nécessaire que l’agent (ou le distributeur : voir ce post pour en savoir plus) ait apporté de nouveaux clients ou augmenté de manière significative les opérations avec les clients préexistants, que son activité puisse continuer à produire des bénéfices substantiels pour le commettant et qu’elle soit équitable. Tout cela conditionnera la reconnaissance du droit à l’indemnisation et son montant.

            Ces expressions (nouveaux clients, augmentation significative, peut produire, avantages substantiels, équitable) sont difficiles à définir au préalable, c’est pourquoi, pour avoir du succès, il est recommandé que les demandes devant les tribunaux soient appuyées, au cas par cas, sur des rapports d’experts, supervisés par un avocat.

            Il existe, du moins en Espagne, une tendance à réclamer directement le maximum prévu par la norme (une année de rémunération calculée comme la moyenne des cinq années précédentes) sans procéder à une analyse plus approfondie. Mais si cela est fait, il y a un risque que le juge rejette la requête comme non fondée.

            Par conséquent, et sur la base de notre expérience, je trouve opportun de fournir des conseils sur la manière de mieux étayer la demande de cette indemnité et son montant.

            L’agent/distributeur, l’expert et l’avocat devraient considérer les points suivants:

            Vérifier quelle a été la contribution de l’agent

            S’il y avait des clients avant le début du contrat et quel volume de ventes a été réalisé avec eux. Pour reconnaître cette compensation, il est nécessaire que l’agent ait augmenté le nombre de clients ou d’opérations avec des clients préexistants.

            Analysez l’importance de ces clients lorsqu’il s’agit de continuer à fournir des prestations au mandant

            Leur récurrence, leur fidélité (au mandant et non à l’agent), le taux de migration (combien d’entre eux resteront avec le mandant à la fin du contrat, ou avec l’agent). En effet, il sera difficile de parler de « clientèle » s’il n’y a eu que des clients sporadiques, occasionnels, non récurrents (ou peu) ou qui resteront fidèles à l’agent et non au mandant.

            Comment l’agent opère-t-il à la fin du contrat?

            Peut-il faire concurrence au commettant ou y a-t-il des restrictions dans le contrat ? Si l’agent peut continuer à servir les mêmes clients, mais pour un autre mandant, la rémunération pourrait être très discutée.

            La rémunération est-elle équitable?

            Examinez comment l’agent a agi dans le passé : s’il a rempli ses obligations, son travail lors de l’introduction des produits ou de l’ouverture du marché, l’évolution possible de ces produits ou services à l’avenir, etc.

            L’agent perdra-t-il des commissions?

            Ici, nous devons examiner s’il avait l’exclusivité ; sa plus ou moins grande facilité à obtenir un nouveau contrat (par exemple, en raison de son âge, de la crise économique, du type de produits, etc.) ou avec une nouvelle source de revenus, l’évolution des ventes au cours des dernières années (celles considérées pour la compensation), etc.

            Quel est le maximum légal qui ne peut être dépassé?

            La moyenne annuelle du montant perçu pendant la durée du contrat (ou 5 ans s’il a duré plus longtemps). Cela comprendra non seulement les commissions, mais aussi les montants fixes, les primes, les prix, etc. ou les marges dans le cas des distributeurs.

            Enfin, il convient d’inclure tous les documents analysés dans le rapport d’expertise

            Si cela n’est pas fait et qu’ils ne sont que mentionnés, cela pourrait avoir pour conséquence qu’ils ne soient pas pris en compte par un juge.

            Consultez le guide pratique sur les agents de l’agence internationale

            Pour en savoir plus sur les principales caractéristiques d’un contrat d’agence en Espagne, consultez notre Guide.

            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.

            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

            Domaines d'intervention

            • Arbitrage
            • Distribution
            • Franchise
            • Litiges
            • Sport
            Contact Javier

            Écrire à Javier





              Lire la politique de confidentialité de Legalmondo.
              Ce site est protégé par reCAPTCHA et les règles de confidentialité et les conditions d'utilisation de Google s'appliquent.

              Spain | Request for annulment of arbitration awards and Public Order

              30 août 2020

              • Espagne
              • Arbitrage
              • Litiges

              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.

              Selon la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour suprême espagnole, un distributeur peut avoir droit à une compensation pour la clientèle si l’article 28 de la loi sur les agences est appliqué par analogie (l' »idée inspiratrice« ). Cette compensation est calculée pour l’agent sur la base des rémunérations perçues au cours des cinq dernières années.

              Or, dans un contrat de distribution, il n’y a pas de « rémunérations » telles que celles perçues par l’agent (commissions, forfaits ou autres), mais des « marges commerciales » (différences entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente). La question est donc de savoir quelle grandeur il faut considérer pour la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution : soit la  » marge brute  » (la différence susmentionnée entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente), soit la  » marge nette  » (cette même différence mais en déduisant les autres frais et taxes dans lesquels le distributeur s’est engagé).

              La conclusion jusqu’à présent semblait être de calculer la rémunération du distributeur à partir de ses « marges brutes », car il s’agit d’une grandeur plus comparable à la « rémunération » de l’agent : les autres dépenses et impôts du distributeur ne pouvaient pas être déduits de la même manière que dans un contrat d’agence, ni les dépenses ni les impôts n’étaient déduits.

              La Cour suprême (17 novembre 1999) avait souligné que pour calculer la rémunération des clients « il est plus approprié de la considérer comme une contribution brute, car avec elle l’agent doit couvrir tous les débours de son organisation commerciale ». En outre, les « gains obtenus » « ne constituent pas une rémunération dans le même sens » (21 octobre 2008), étant donné que ces « avantages« , « appartiennent au champ interne de l’organisation propre de l’agent » (12 mars 2012).

              Récemment, cependant, l’arrêt de la Cour suprême du 1er mars 2017 (confirmé par un autre du 19 mai 2017) considère que la détermination du montant de la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution ne peut pas être basée sur les  » marges brutes  » obtenues par le distributeur, mais dans la  » marge nette « . Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, la Cour se réfère à un arrêt de la même juridiction de 2016 et à d’autres de 2010 et 2007.

              Cela implique-t-il un changement de jurisprudence ? À mon avis, cette lecture que fait la Cour suprême n’est pas correcte. Voyons pourquoi.

              Dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la disjonction entre marge brute ou nette est mentionnée dans le deuxième argument juridique et renvoie à l’arrêt de 2016.

              Dans cet arrêt de 2016 il a été retenu que même si un autre arrêt de 2010 n’a pas décidé si le calcul devait être fait sur les marges brutes ou nettes, dans un précédent arrêt de 2007, il a été admis que ce qui était similaire à la rémunération de l’agent était le bénéfice net obtenu par le distributeur (bénéfices une fois déduits les frais et les impôts) et non la marge qui est la différence entre les prix d’achat et de revente.

              Or, à mon avis, dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la Cour suprême se réfère en dernière instance à l’arrêt 296/2007 pour quelque chose que ce dernier n’a pas dit. En 2007, la Cour Suprême n’a pas quantifié l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais plutôt les dommages et intérêts. Plus précisément, et après avoir affirmé que « l’indemnisation de la clientèle doit être demandée clairement dans le procès, sans confusion ni ambiguïté », la Cour a conclu que la Chambre « doit résoudre ce qui correspond aux termes dans lesquels le débat a été soulevé… dans le procès initial. Et puisque […] une indemnité de dommages-intérêts était intéressée principalement en fonction de la durée de la relation […] la solution plus adaptée à la jurisprudence de cette Cour […] consiste à fixer comme indemnité de dommages-intérêts un montant équivalent aux bénéfices nets qui [ont été] obtenus par la distribution des produits […] pendant l’année précédant immédiatement la fin du contrat « .

              Par conséquent, dans cet arrêt de 2007, la Cour ne s’est pas prononcée sur l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais sur les dommages et intérêts.

              De cette façon, la conclusion à laquelle on était parvenu en 2007 pour calculer l’indemnisation des dommages sur les marges nettes, a été transférée sans autre analyse en 2016 mais pour le calcul de l’indemnisation de la clientèle. Ce critère est maintenant réitéré dans les arrêts de 2017 de manière quasi automatique.

              A mon avis, cependant, et malgré le changement jurisprudentiel, la thèse qui devrait prévaloir est que pour appliquer par analogie l’indemnité de clientèle dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur équivalente à la  » rémunération  » de l’agent est la  » marge brute  » obtenue par le distributeur et non sa  » marge nette  » : il n’est pas très logique que si l’on applique l’analogie pour reconnaître l’indemnité de clientèle à un distributeur, on la déduise des montants de ses marges brutes pour atteindre sa marge ou son bénéfice net. L’agent a aussi ses dépenses et paie aussi ses impôts à partir de ses « rémunérations » et rien dans la directive 86/653/CEE ni dans la loi sur le contrat d’agence ne permet de déduire de telles grandeurs pour calculer son indemnité de clientèle. A mon avis, donc, et dans le même ordre d’idées, les distributeurs devraient être égaux : les grandeurs qui pourraient être comparées devraient être les rétributions (brutes) de l’agent avec les marges (brutes) du distributeur (c’est-à-dire la différence entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente).

              En conclusion, les jugements du 1er mars et du 19 mai 2017 insistent sur ce que je considère comme une erreur antérieure et génèrent une confusion supplémentaire à une question qui a déjà été discutée : l’application analogique de la rémunération de la clientèle aux contrats de distribution et la méthode de calcul.

               Avis de mise à jour (27 janvier 2020)

              Dans une récente ordonnance ( » Auto « ) de la Cour Suprême du 20 novembre 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 d’irrecevabilité du recours), la Cour a eu l’occasion de revenir sur cette question et de confirmer les critères de la dernière jurisprudence : que dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur à considérer pour appliquer l’analogie et calculer l’indemnité de clientèle sont les  » marges nettes « .

              Dans cette procédure, un distributeur a fait appel de la décision de la Cour provinciale de Barcelone qui a reconnu une indemnisation basée sur les marges nettes et non sur les marges brutes. Ledit distributeur a demandé à la Cour suprême d’annuler ledit jugement au motif qu’il a été pris en application de la dernière jurisprudence, erronée selon la précédente dans l’opinion de l’appelant.

              La Cour suprême, cependant, semble confirmer que, contrairement à la thèse que j’ai défendue plus haut dans ce billet,  » il n’y a pas d’erreur alléguée dans la jurisprudence la plus récente dans l’interprétation analogique de l’art. 28.3 de la loi sur l’agence pour le contrat de distribution, ni, par conséquent, la nécessité de revoir la jurisprudence la plus récente en la matière « . Par conséquent, si la Cour Suprême ne révise pas sa jurisprudence la plus récente et considère que le jugement qui a appliqué les marges nettes était acceptable, nous devons considérer que la grandeur à considérer dans la compensation pour la clientèle dans les contrats de distribution est celle des marges nettes et non des marges brutes.

              Avec cette décision, il semble (ou juste  » il semble  » ?), donc, que la Cour tranche la discussion qui, cependant et à mon avis, continuera néanmoins à susciter de nombreuses discussions.

              Résumé

              A la fin des contrats d’agence et de distribution, la principale source de conflit est l’indemnité de clientèle. La loi espagnole sur le contrat d’agence -comme la directive sur les agents commerciaux- prévoit que lorsque le contrat prend fin, l’agent aura droit, si certaines conditions sont remplies, à une indemnité. En Espagne, par analogie (mais avec des qualifications et des nuances), cette indemnité peut également être réclamée dans les contrats de distribution.

              Pour que l’indemnité de clientèle soit reconnue, il est nécessaire que l’agent (ou le distributeur : voir ce post pour en savoir plus) ait apporté de nouveaux clients ou augmenté de manière significative les opérations avec les clients préexistants, que son activité puisse continuer à produire des bénéfices substantiels pour le commettant et qu’elle soit équitable. Tout cela conditionnera la reconnaissance du droit à l’indemnisation et son montant.

              Ces expressions (nouveaux clients, augmentation significative, peut produire, avantages substantiels, équitable) sont difficiles à définir au préalable, c’est pourquoi, pour avoir du succès, il est recommandé que les demandes devant les tribunaux soient appuyées, au cas par cas, sur des rapports d’experts, supervisés par un avocat.

              Il existe, du moins en Espagne, une tendance à réclamer directement le maximum prévu par la norme (une année de rémunération calculée comme la moyenne des cinq années précédentes) sans procéder à une analyse plus approfondie. Mais si cela est fait, il y a un risque que le juge rejette la requête comme non fondée.

              Par conséquent, et sur la base de notre expérience, je trouve opportun de fournir des conseils sur la manière de mieux étayer la demande de cette indemnité et son montant.

              L’agent/distributeur, l’expert et l’avocat devraient considérer les points suivants:

              Vérifier quelle a été la contribution de l’agent

              S’il y avait des clients avant le début du contrat et quel volume de ventes a été réalisé avec eux. Pour reconnaître cette compensation, il est nécessaire que l’agent ait augmenté le nombre de clients ou d’opérations avec des clients préexistants.

              Analysez l’importance de ces clients lorsqu’il s’agit de continuer à fournir des prestations au mandant

              Leur récurrence, leur fidélité (au mandant et non à l’agent), le taux de migration (combien d’entre eux resteront avec le mandant à la fin du contrat, ou avec l’agent). En effet, il sera difficile de parler de « clientèle » s’il n’y a eu que des clients sporadiques, occasionnels, non récurrents (ou peu) ou qui resteront fidèles à l’agent et non au mandant.

              Comment l’agent opère-t-il à la fin du contrat?

              Peut-il faire concurrence au commettant ou y a-t-il des restrictions dans le contrat ? Si l’agent peut continuer à servir les mêmes clients, mais pour un autre mandant, la rémunération pourrait être très discutée.

              La rémunération est-elle équitable?

              Examinez comment l’agent a agi dans le passé : s’il a rempli ses obligations, son travail lors de l’introduction des produits ou de l’ouverture du marché, l’évolution possible de ces produits ou services à l’avenir, etc.

              L’agent perdra-t-il des commissions?

              Ici, nous devons examiner s’il avait l’exclusivité ; sa plus ou moins grande facilité à obtenir un nouveau contrat (par exemple, en raison de son âge, de la crise économique, du type de produits, etc.) ou avec une nouvelle source de revenus, l’évolution des ventes au cours des dernières années (celles considérées pour la compensation), etc.

              Quel est le maximum légal qui ne peut être dépassé?

              La moyenne annuelle du montant perçu pendant la durée du contrat (ou 5 ans s’il a duré plus longtemps). Cela comprendra non seulement les commissions, mais aussi les montants fixes, les primes, les prix, etc. ou les marges dans le cas des distributeurs.

              Enfin, il convient d’inclure tous les documents analysés dans le rapport d’expertise

              Si cela n’est pas fait et qu’ils ne sont que mentionnés, cela pourrait avoir pour conséquence qu’ils ne soient pas pris en compte par un juge.

              Consultez le guide pratique sur les agents de l’agence internationale

              Pour en savoir plus sur les principales caractéristiques d’un contrat d’agence en Espagne, consultez notre Guide.

              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.

              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

              Domaines d'intervention

              • Arbitrage
              • Distribution
              • Franchise
              • Litiges
              • Sport
              Contact Javier

              Écrire à Javier





                Lire la politique de confidentialité de Legalmondo.
                Ce site est protégé par reCAPTCHA et les règles de confidentialité et les conditions d'utilisation de Google s'appliquent.

                The importance of Mediation in Distribution Contracts

                14 juillet 2020

                • Espagne
                • Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges
                • Distribution

                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.

                Selon la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour suprême espagnole, un distributeur peut avoir droit à une compensation pour la clientèle si l’article 28 de la loi sur les agences est appliqué par analogie (l' »idée inspiratrice« ). Cette compensation est calculée pour l’agent sur la base des rémunérations perçues au cours des cinq dernières années.

                Or, dans un contrat de distribution, il n’y a pas de « rémunérations » telles que celles perçues par l’agent (commissions, forfaits ou autres), mais des « marges commerciales » (différences entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente). La question est donc de savoir quelle grandeur il faut considérer pour la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution : soit la  » marge brute  » (la différence susmentionnée entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente), soit la  » marge nette  » (cette même différence mais en déduisant les autres frais et taxes dans lesquels le distributeur s’est engagé).

                La conclusion jusqu’à présent semblait être de calculer la rémunération du distributeur à partir de ses « marges brutes », car il s’agit d’une grandeur plus comparable à la « rémunération » de l’agent : les autres dépenses et impôts du distributeur ne pouvaient pas être déduits de la même manière que dans un contrat d’agence, ni les dépenses ni les impôts n’étaient déduits.

                La Cour suprême (17 novembre 1999) avait souligné que pour calculer la rémunération des clients « il est plus approprié de la considérer comme une contribution brute, car avec elle l’agent doit couvrir tous les débours de son organisation commerciale ». En outre, les « gains obtenus » « ne constituent pas une rémunération dans le même sens » (21 octobre 2008), étant donné que ces « avantages« , « appartiennent au champ interne de l’organisation propre de l’agent » (12 mars 2012).

                Récemment, cependant, l’arrêt de la Cour suprême du 1er mars 2017 (confirmé par un autre du 19 mai 2017) considère que la détermination du montant de la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution ne peut pas être basée sur les  » marges brutes  » obtenues par le distributeur, mais dans la  » marge nette « . Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, la Cour se réfère à un arrêt de la même juridiction de 2016 et à d’autres de 2010 et 2007.

                Cela implique-t-il un changement de jurisprudence ? À mon avis, cette lecture que fait la Cour suprême n’est pas correcte. Voyons pourquoi.

                Dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la disjonction entre marge brute ou nette est mentionnée dans le deuxième argument juridique et renvoie à l’arrêt de 2016.

                Dans cet arrêt de 2016 il a été retenu que même si un autre arrêt de 2010 n’a pas décidé si le calcul devait être fait sur les marges brutes ou nettes, dans un précédent arrêt de 2007, il a été admis que ce qui était similaire à la rémunération de l’agent était le bénéfice net obtenu par le distributeur (bénéfices une fois déduits les frais et les impôts) et non la marge qui est la différence entre les prix d’achat et de revente.

                Or, à mon avis, dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la Cour suprême se réfère en dernière instance à l’arrêt 296/2007 pour quelque chose que ce dernier n’a pas dit. En 2007, la Cour Suprême n’a pas quantifié l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais plutôt les dommages et intérêts. Plus précisément, et après avoir affirmé que « l’indemnisation de la clientèle doit être demandée clairement dans le procès, sans confusion ni ambiguïté », la Cour a conclu que la Chambre « doit résoudre ce qui correspond aux termes dans lesquels le débat a été soulevé… dans le procès initial. Et puisque […] une indemnité de dommages-intérêts était intéressée principalement en fonction de la durée de la relation […] la solution plus adaptée à la jurisprudence de cette Cour […] consiste à fixer comme indemnité de dommages-intérêts un montant équivalent aux bénéfices nets qui [ont été] obtenus par la distribution des produits […] pendant l’année précédant immédiatement la fin du contrat « .

                Par conséquent, dans cet arrêt de 2007, la Cour ne s’est pas prononcée sur l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais sur les dommages et intérêts.

                De cette façon, la conclusion à laquelle on était parvenu en 2007 pour calculer l’indemnisation des dommages sur les marges nettes, a été transférée sans autre analyse en 2016 mais pour le calcul de l’indemnisation de la clientèle. Ce critère est maintenant réitéré dans les arrêts de 2017 de manière quasi automatique.

                A mon avis, cependant, et malgré le changement jurisprudentiel, la thèse qui devrait prévaloir est que pour appliquer par analogie l’indemnité de clientèle dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur équivalente à la  » rémunération  » de l’agent est la  » marge brute  » obtenue par le distributeur et non sa  » marge nette  » : il n’est pas très logique que si l’on applique l’analogie pour reconnaître l’indemnité de clientèle à un distributeur, on la déduise des montants de ses marges brutes pour atteindre sa marge ou son bénéfice net. L’agent a aussi ses dépenses et paie aussi ses impôts à partir de ses « rémunérations » et rien dans la directive 86/653/CEE ni dans la loi sur le contrat d’agence ne permet de déduire de telles grandeurs pour calculer son indemnité de clientèle. A mon avis, donc, et dans le même ordre d’idées, les distributeurs devraient être égaux : les grandeurs qui pourraient être comparées devraient être les rétributions (brutes) de l’agent avec les marges (brutes) du distributeur (c’est-à-dire la différence entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente).

                En conclusion, les jugements du 1er mars et du 19 mai 2017 insistent sur ce que je considère comme une erreur antérieure et génèrent une confusion supplémentaire à une question qui a déjà été discutée : l’application analogique de la rémunération de la clientèle aux contrats de distribution et la méthode de calcul.

                 Avis de mise à jour (27 janvier 2020)

                Dans une récente ordonnance ( » Auto « ) de la Cour Suprême du 20 novembre 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 d’irrecevabilité du recours), la Cour a eu l’occasion de revenir sur cette question et de confirmer les critères de la dernière jurisprudence : que dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur à considérer pour appliquer l’analogie et calculer l’indemnité de clientèle sont les  » marges nettes « .

                Dans cette procédure, un distributeur a fait appel de la décision de la Cour provinciale de Barcelone qui a reconnu une indemnisation basée sur les marges nettes et non sur les marges brutes. Ledit distributeur a demandé à la Cour suprême d’annuler ledit jugement au motif qu’il a été pris en application de la dernière jurisprudence, erronée selon la précédente dans l’opinion de l’appelant.

                La Cour suprême, cependant, semble confirmer que, contrairement à la thèse que j’ai défendue plus haut dans ce billet,  » il n’y a pas d’erreur alléguée dans la jurisprudence la plus récente dans l’interprétation analogique de l’art. 28.3 de la loi sur l’agence pour le contrat de distribution, ni, par conséquent, la nécessité de revoir la jurisprudence la plus récente en la matière « . Par conséquent, si la Cour Suprême ne révise pas sa jurisprudence la plus récente et considère que le jugement qui a appliqué les marges nettes était acceptable, nous devons considérer que la grandeur à considérer dans la compensation pour la clientèle dans les contrats de distribution est celle des marges nettes et non des marges brutes.

                Avec cette décision, il semble (ou juste  » il semble  » ?), donc, que la Cour tranche la discussion qui, cependant et à mon avis, continuera néanmoins à susciter de nombreuses discussions.

                Résumé

                A la fin des contrats d’agence et de distribution, la principale source de conflit est l’indemnité de clientèle. La loi espagnole sur le contrat d’agence -comme la directive sur les agents commerciaux- prévoit que lorsque le contrat prend fin, l’agent aura droit, si certaines conditions sont remplies, à une indemnité. En Espagne, par analogie (mais avec des qualifications et des nuances), cette indemnité peut également être réclamée dans les contrats de distribution.

                Pour que l’indemnité de clientèle soit reconnue, il est nécessaire que l’agent (ou le distributeur : voir ce post pour en savoir plus) ait apporté de nouveaux clients ou augmenté de manière significative les opérations avec les clients préexistants, que son activité puisse continuer à produire des bénéfices substantiels pour le commettant et qu’elle soit équitable. Tout cela conditionnera la reconnaissance du droit à l’indemnisation et son montant.

                Ces expressions (nouveaux clients, augmentation significative, peut produire, avantages substantiels, équitable) sont difficiles à définir au préalable, c’est pourquoi, pour avoir du succès, il est recommandé que les demandes devant les tribunaux soient appuyées, au cas par cas, sur des rapports d’experts, supervisés par un avocat.

                Il existe, du moins en Espagne, une tendance à réclamer directement le maximum prévu par la norme (une année de rémunération calculée comme la moyenne des cinq années précédentes) sans procéder à une analyse plus approfondie. Mais si cela est fait, il y a un risque que le juge rejette la requête comme non fondée.

                Par conséquent, et sur la base de notre expérience, je trouve opportun de fournir des conseils sur la manière de mieux étayer la demande de cette indemnité et son montant.

                L’agent/distributeur, l’expert et l’avocat devraient considérer les points suivants:

                Vérifier quelle a été la contribution de l’agent

                S’il y avait des clients avant le début du contrat et quel volume de ventes a été réalisé avec eux. Pour reconnaître cette compensation, il est nécessaire que l’agent ait augmenté le nombre de clients ou d’opérations avec des clients préexistants.

                Analysez l’importance de ces clients lorsqu’il s’agit de continuer à fournir des prestations au mandant

                Leur récurrence, leur fidélité (au mandant et non à l’agent), le taux de migration (combien d’entre eux resteront avec le mandant à la fin du contrat, ou avec l’agent). En effet, il sera difficile de parler de « clientèle » s’il n’y a eu que des clients sporadiques, occasionnels, non récurrents (ou peu) ou qui resteront fidèles à l’agent et non au mandant.

                Comment l’agent opère-t-il à la fin du contrat?

                Peut-il faire concurrence au commettant ou y a-t-il des restrictions dans le contrat ? Si l’agent peut continuer à servir les mêmes clients, mais pour un autre mandant, la rémunération pourrait être très discutée.

                La rémunération est-elle équitable?

                Examinez comment l’agent a agi dans le passé : s’il a rempli ses obligations, son travail lors de l’introduction des produits ou de l’ouverture du marché, l’évolution possible de ces produits ou services à l’avenir, etc.

                L’agent perdra-t-il des commissions?

                Ici, nous devons examiner s’il avait l’exclusivité ; sa plus ou moins grande facilité à obtenir un nouveau contrat (par exemple, en raison de son âge, de la crise économique, du type de produits, etc.) ou avec une nouvelle source de revenus, l’évolution des ventes au cours des dernières années (celles considérées pour la compensation), etc.

                Quel est le maximum légal qui ne peut être dépassé?

                La moyenne annuelle du montant perçu pendant la durée du contrat (ou 5 ans s’il a duré plus longtemps). Cela comprendra non seulement les commissions, mais aussi les montants fixes, les primes, les prix, etc. ou les marges dans le cas des distributeurs.

                Enfin, il convient d’inclure tous les documents analysés dans le rapport d’expertise

                Si cela n’est pas fait et qu’ils ne sont que mentionnés, cela pourrait avoir pour conséquence qu’ils ne soient pas pris en compte par un juge.

                Consultez le guide pratique sur les agents de l’agence internationale

                Pour en savoir plus sur les principales caractéristiques d’un contrat d’agence en Espagne, consultez notre Guide.

                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.

                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

                Domaines d'intervention

                • Agence
                • Entreprise
                • Distribution
                • Franchise
                Contact Ignacio

                Écrire à Ignacio





                  Lire la politique de confidentialité de Legalmondo.
                  Ce site est protégé par reCAPTCHA et les règles de confidentialité et les conditions d'utilisation de Google s'appliquent.

                  Spain | Covid 19 – Measures for payment of the rent for commercial and industrial premises

                  18 avril 2020

                  • Espagne
                  • Contrats
                  • Immobilier

                  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.

                  Selon la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour suprême espagnole, un distributeur peut avoir droit à une compensation pour la clientèle si l’article 28 de la loi sur les agences est appliqué par analogie (l' »idée inspiratrice« ). Cette compensation est calculée pour l’agent sur la base des rémunérations perçues au cours des cinq dernières années.

                  Or, dans un contrat de distribution, il n’y a pas de « rémunérations » telles que celles perçues par l’agent (commissions, forfaits ou autres), mais des « marges commerciales » (différences entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente). La question est donc de savoir quelle grandeur il faut considérer pour la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution : soit la  » marge brute  » (la différence susmentionnée entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente), soit la  » marge nette  » (cette même différence mais en déduisant les autres frais et taxes dans lesquels le distributeur s’est engagé).

                  La conclusion jusqu’à présent semblait être de calculer la rémunération du distributeur à partir de ses « marges brutes », car il s’agit d’une grandeur plus comparable à la « rémunération » de l’agent : les autres dépenses et impôts du distributeur ne pouvaient pas être déduits de la même manière que dans un contrat d’agence, ni les dépenses ni les impôts n’étaient déduits.

                  La Cour suprême (17 novembre 1999) avait souligné que pour calculer la rémunération des clients « il est plus approprié de la considérer comme une contribution brute, car avec elle l’agent doit couvrir tous les débours de son organisation commerciale ». En outre, les « gains obtenus » « ne constituent pas une rémunération dans le même sens » (21 octobre 2008), étant donné que ces « avantages« , « appartiennent au champ interne de l’organisation propre de l’agent » (12 mars 2012).

                  Récemment, cependant, l’arrêt de la Cour suprême du 1er mars 2017 (confirmé par un autre du 19 mai 2017) considère que la détermination du montant de la rémunération de la clientèle dans un contrat de distribution ne peut pas être basée sur les  » marges brutes  » obtenues par le distributeur, mais dans la  » marge nette « . Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, la Cour se réfère à un arrêt de la même juridiction de 2016 et à d’autres de 2010 et 2007.

                  Cela implique-t-il un changement de jurisprudence ? À mon avis, cette lecture que fait la Cour suprême n’est pas correcte. Voyons pourquoi.

                  Dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la disjonction entre marge brute ou nette est mentionnée dans le deuxième argument juridique et renvoie à l’arrêt de 2016.

                  Dans cet arrêt de 2016 il a été retenu que même si un autre arrêt de 2010 n’a pas décidé si le calcul devait être fait sur les marges brutes ou nettes, dans un précédent arrêt de 2007, il a été admis que ce qui était similaire à la rémunération de l’agent était le bénéfice net obtenu par le distributeur (bénéfices une fois déduits les frais et les impôts) et non la marge qui est la différence entre les prix d’achat et de revente.

                  Or, à mon avis, dans l’arrêt de mars 2017, la Cour suprême se réfère en dernière instance à l’arrêt 296/2007 pour quelque chose que ce dernier n’a pas dit. En 2007, la Cour Suprême n’a pas quantifié l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais plutôt les dommages et intérêts. Plus précisément, et après avoir affirmé que « l’indemnisation de la clientèle doit être demandée clairement dans le procès, sans confusion ni ambiguïté », la Cour a conclu que la Chambre « doit résoudre ce qui correspond aux termes dans lesquels le débat a été soulevé… dans le procès initial. Et puisque […] une indemnité de dommages-intérêts était intéressée principalement en fonction de la durée de la relation […] la solution plus adaptée à la jurisprudence de cette Cour […] consiste à fixer comme indemnité de dommages-intérêts un montant équivalent aux bénéfices nets qui [ont été] obtenus par la distribution des produits […] pendant l’année précédant immédiatement la fin du contrat « .

                  Par conséquent, dans cet arrêt de 2007, la Cour ne s’est pas prononcée sur l’indemnisation de la clientèle, mais sur les dommages et intérêts.

                  De cette façon, la conclusion à laquelle on était parvenu en 2007 pour calculer l’indemnisation des dommages sur les marges nettes, a été transférée sans autre analyse en 2016 mais pour le calcul de l’indemnisation de la clientèle. Ce critère est maintenant réitéré dans les arrêts de 2017 de manière quasi automatique.

                  A mon avis, cependant, et malgré le changement jurisprudentiel, la thèse qui devrait prévaloir est que pour appliquer par analogie l’indemnité de clientèle dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur équivalente à la  » rémunération  » de l’agent est la  » marge brute  » obtenue par le distributeur et non sa  » marge nette  » : il n’est pas très logique que si l’on applique l’analogie pour reconnaître l’indemnité de clientèle à un distributeur, on la déduise des montants de ses marges brutes pour atteindre sa marge ou son bénéfice net. L’agent a aussi ses dépenses et paie aussi ses impôts à partir de ses « rémunérations » et rien dans la directive 86/653/CEE ni dans la loi sur le contrat d’agence ne permet de déduire de telles grandeurs pour calculer son indemnité de clientèle. A mon avis, donc, et dans le même ordre d’idées, les distributeurs devraient être égaux : les grandeurs qui pourraient être comparées devraient être les rétributions (brutes) de l’agent avec les marges (brutes) du distributeur (c’est-à-dire la différence entre le prix d’achat et le prix de revente).

                  En conclusion, les jugements du 1er mars et du 19 mai 2017 insistent sur ce que je considère comme une erreur antérieure et génèrent une confusion supplémentaire à une question qui a déjà été discutée : l’application analogique de la rémunération de la clientèle aux contrats de distribution et la méthode de calcul.

                   Avis de mise à jour (27 janvier 2020)

                  Dans une récente ordonnance ( » Auto « ) de la Cour Suprême du 20 novembre 2019 (ATS 12255/2019 d’irrecevabilité du recours), la Cour a eu l’occasion de revenir sur cette question et de confirmer les critères de la dernière jurisprudence : que dans les contrats de distribution, la grandeur à considérer pour appliquer l’analogie et calculer l’indemnité de clientèle sont les  » marges nettes « .

                  Dans cette procédure, un distributeur a fait appel de la décision de la Cour provinciale de Barcelone qui a reconnu une indemnisation basée sur les marges nettes et non sur les marges brutes. Ledit distributeur a demandé à la Cour suprême d’annuler ledit jugement au motif qu’il a été pris en application de la dernière jurisprudence, erronée selon la précédente dans l’opinion de l’appelant.

                  La Cour suprême, cependant, semble confirmer que, contrairement à la thèse que j’ai défendue plus haut dans ce billet,  » il n’y a pas d’erreur alléguée dans la jurisprudence la plus récente dans l’interprétation analogique de l’art. 28.3 de la loi sur l’agence pour le contrat de distribution, ni, par conséquent, la nécessité de revoir la jurisprudence la plus récente en la matière « . Par conséquent, si la Cour Suprême ne révise pas sa jurisprudence la plus récente et considère que le jugement qui a appliqué les marges nettes était acceptable, nous devons considérer que la grandeur à considérer dans la compensation pour la clientèle dans les contrats de distribution est celle des marges nettes et non des marges brutes.

                  Avec cette décision, il semble (ou juste  » il semble  » ?), donc, que la Cour tranche la discussion qui, cependant et à mon avis, continuera néanmoins à susciter de nombreuses discussions.

                  Résumé

                  A la fin des contrats d’agence et de distribution, la principale source de conflit est l’indemnité de clientèle. La loi espagnole sur le contrat d’agence -comme la directive sur les agents commerciaux- prévoit que lorsque le contrat prend fin, l’agent aura droit, si certaines conditions sont remplies, à une indemnité. En Espagne, par analogie (mais avec des qualifications et des nuances), cette indemnité peut également être réclamée dans les contrats de distribution.

                  Pour que l’indemnité de clientèle soit reconnue, il est nécessaire que l’agent (ou le distributeur : voir ce post pour en savoir plus) ait apporté de nouveaux clients ou augmenté de manière significative les opérations avec les clients préexistants, que son activité puisse continuer à produire des bénéfices substantiels pour le commettant et qu’elle soit équitable. Tout cela conditionnera la reconnaissance du droit à l’indemnisation et son montant.

                  Ces expressions (nouveaux clients, augmentation significative, peut produire, avantages substantiels, équitable) sont difficiles à définir au préalable, c’est pourquoi, pour avoir du succès, il est recommandé que les demandes devant les tribunaux soient appuyées, au cas par cas, sur des rapports d’experts, supervisés par un avocat.

                  Il existe, du moins en Espagne, une tendance à réclamer directement le maximum prévu par la norme (une année de rémunération calculée comme la moyenne des cinq années précédentes) sans procéder à une analyse plus approfondie. Mais si cela est fait, il y a un risque que le juge rejette la requête comme non fondée.

                  Par conséquent, et sur la base de notre expérience, je trouve opportun de fournir des conseils sur la manière de mieux étayer la demande de cette indemnité et son montant.

                  L’agent/distributeur, l’expert et l’avocat devraient considérer les points suivants:

                  Vérifier quelle a été la contribution de l’agent

                  S’il y avait des clients avant le début du contrat et quel volume de ventes a été réalisé avec eux. Pour reconnaître cette compensation, il est nécessaire que l’agent ait augmenté le nombre de clients ou d’opérations avec des clients préexistants.

                  Analysez l’importance de ces clients lorsqu’il s’agit de continuer à fournir des prestations au mandant

                  Leur récurrence, leur fidélité (au mandant et non à l’agent), le taux de migration (combien d’entre eux resteront avec le mandant à la fin du contrat, ou avec l’agent). En effet, il sera difficile de parler de « clientèle » s’il n’y a eu que des clients sporadiques, occasionnels, non récurrents (ou peu) ou qui resteront fidèles à l’agent et non au mandant.

                  Comment l’agent opère-t-il à la fin du contrat?

                  Peut-il faire concurrence au commettant ou y a-t-il des restrictions dans le contrat ? Si l’agent peut continuer à servir les mêmes clients, mais pour un autre mandant, la rémunération pourrait être très discutée.

                  La rémunération est-elle équitable?

                  Examinez comment l’agent a agi dans le passé : s’il a rempli ses obligations, son travail lors de l’introduction des produits ou de l’ouverture du marché, l’évolution possible de ces produits ou services à l’avenir, etc.

                  L’agent perdra-t-il des commissions?

                  Ici, nous devons examiner s’il avait l’exclusivité ; sa plus ou moins grande facilité à obtenir un nouveau contrat (par exemple, en raison de son âge, de la crise économique, du type de produits, etc.) ou avec une nouvelle source de revenus, l’évolution des ventes au cours des dernières années (celles considérées pour la compensation), etc.

                  Quel est le maximum légal qui ne peut être dépassé?

                  La moyenne annuelle du montant perçu pendant la durée du contrat (ou 5 ans s’il a duré plus longtemps). Cela comprendra non seulement les commissions, mais aussi les montants fixes, les primes, les prix, etc. ou les marges dans le cas des distributeurs.

                  Enfin, il convient d’inclure tous les documents analysés dans le rapport d’expertise

                  Si cela n’est pas fait et qu’ils ne sont que mentionnés, cela pourrait avoir pour conséquence qu’ils ne soient pas pris en compte par un juge.

                  Consultez le guide pratique sur les agents de l’agence internationale

                  Pour en savoir plus sur les principales caractéristiques d’un contrat d’agence en Espagne, consultez notre Guide.

                  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.

                  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

                  Domaines d'intervention

                  • Franchise
                  • Immigration
                  • Commerce international
                  • Fusions et acquisitions
                  • Immobilier
                  Contact Mercedes

                  Écrire à Mercedes





                    Lire la politique de confidentialité de Legalmondo.
                    Ce site est protégé par reCAPTCHA et les règles de confidentialité et les conditions d'utilisation de Google s'appliquent.