German Federal Court 2026: Payment Is Due Without Invoice Approval

A trades business whose work has been accepted and which has issued a verifiable final invoice does not have to wait until the customer's architect, site manager or accounting department has "approved" the invoice. That is what the German Federal Court of Justice settled on 25 February 2026 with its order VII ZR 146/24: a contract clause under which the payment period for interim and final invoices starts only once the architect has approved them is invalid. Payment for the work falls due with acceptance, and 30 days after the due date and receipt of the invoice a commercial client is in default, without any reminder. The excuse "the invoice is still with the architect" therefore moves neither the due date nor default, it costs the customer interest.

What the Federal Court of Justice decided

The case comes from Schleswig-Holstein. In October 2018 a client commissioned a general contractor to build a turnkey house, under a BGB construction contract, not under the VOB/B. The contract had been drafted by the client's architect, negotiated with the contractor and presented for signature. Among other things it stated that the payment period for interim and final invoices starts only once the architect has approved the invoice, and that the contractor has to provide a warranty bond.

After acceptance, which was documented in a protocol, the client did not pay the final invoice. His reasoning: the invoice had not been approved, and the bond was missing. On 21 August 2024 the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig found for the contractor (case 12 U 29/23). On 25 February 2026 the Federal Court of Justice rejected the client's complaint against the denial of leave to appeal (case VII ZR 146/24), which makes the judgment final.

The same proceedings turned on a second question that matters for trades businesses as well: the client wanted to set off a contractual penalty for missing deadlines. The court rejected that too, because continuing disruptions had overturned the entire schedule and the contractual penalty had thereby lost its basis.

Why the approval clause is invalid

The court took three steps that carry over to many contracts in the trades.

1. 01

   The clause is a standard business term of the client (Section 305 BGB)

   The contract was provided by the client's architect and presented to the contractor. That makes the clauses ones imposed by the client, and they are subject to review of standard business terms, even though the client did not use a form of his own.
2. 02

   The client has to accept responsibility for the architect (Section 278 BGB)

   Where the architect negotiates and concludes the construction contracts with the knowledge and intention of the client, he is the client's agent for that purpose. The client cannot fall back on the argument that it was the architect who drafted the clauses in his favour. As an aside: drafting contracts is a legal service that an architect is as a rule not permitted to provide under Section 3 of the Legal Services Act, with the corresponding liability risk.
3. 03

   The clause unreasonably disadvantages the contractor (Section 307 BGB)

   It makes the due date depend on an act that lies solely in the hands of the client and his representative. The contractor can neither enforce nor speed up the approval. The clause therefore departs from the statutory model, which ties the due date to acceptance and a verifiable invoice, to the contractor's detriment.

The right of retention based on the missing warranty bond failed for the same reason: that clause too was invalid as a standard business term. So the statutory due date applied.

When payment for work falls due under the law

The benchmark against which the clause failed is set out in Section 650g (4) BGB, the rule on due dates in construction contracts:

The third sentence is the most important one for trades businesses: anyone who spends 30 days without raising substantiated objections to verifiability cannot later argue that the invoice was not verifiable. A blanket "not approved yet" is not a substantiated objection. In the Schleswig case the client had put forward nothing substantial against verifiability within the 30 days, so the invoice was due.

What default costs the customer in 2026

Default starts the clock on default interest, and that has gone up in 2026. The Deutsche Bundesbank raised the base rate under Section 247 BGB to 1.52 percent as of 1 July 2026, up from 1.27 percent in the first half of the year.

On an unpaid tradesman's invoice of €15,000 towards a commercial customer that comes to roughly €131 in interest per month, plus the flat fee of €40. Whoever does not calculate the interest is giving it away.

What trades businesses should do now

The decision only helps those who can cleanly document that the conditions for the due date are met. Six steps that any business can implement:

1. 01

   Document acceptance

   An acceptance protocol with a date and a signature is the strongest evidence. If the customer refuses acceptance without naming a defect, Section 640 (2) BGB helps: set a deadline for acceptance, and if it passes without a notice of defects the work counts as accepted (consumers have to be informed of that consequence in text form).
2. 02

   Make the final invoice verifiable

   Items as in the quotation or the bill of quantities, quantities, unit prices, hours with hourly rates, interim payments deducted, variations shown separately. Record receipt: date of dispatch, ideally with proof for post or email.
3. 03

   Keep an eye on the 30-day clock

   Two periods run in parallel from receipt of the invoice: 30 days for substantiated objections by the customer to verifiability (Section 650g (4) BGB) and 30 days until default (Section 286 (3) BGB). For consumers, put the notice about default on the invoice.
4. 04

   Answer "not approved" in writing

   Short and factual: date of acceptance, date of the invoice, a note that internal approval is not a condition for the payment falling due under BGH VII ZR 146/24, a payment deadline of ten days for example. From then on, state the default interest.
5. 05

   Review your own contracts

   Clauses that tie the due date to an approval, a check or a confirmation by the client are open to challenge under this case law where the client imposes them. Anyone who finds them in contracts from developers, architects or general contractors should not accept them tacitly but have them deleted, or at least know that they are not bound by them.
6. 06

   Define the escalation

   Payment reminder, formal reminder, court dunning procedure or action. A reminder is not legally required, but it is often the quickest route. Anyone who does not want to carry the effort themselves can hand the claim to a debt collection service.

When the customer still does not pay

For small businesses, instructing their own lawyer rarely pays off on claims in the three to five figure range, and their own time is needed elsewhere than for chasing payments. Success-based debt collection services close that gap. One example is ForderFix (German-language site), an offering for trades businesses: upload the unpaid invoice and the last email to the customer, the claim is assigned, and what follows is a legally sound reminder including default interest and, where needed, a court dunning order and an action through a partner law firm. The principle is "no success, no cost": if the claim turns out to be unrecoverable, the business incurs no costs, and where it succeeds a success fee may apply. What matters with any provider: it is not a law firm and does not replace legal advice, and legal representation runs through partner firms.

Whether debt collection, a dunning procedure or your own lawyer: the basis is the same in every case. Prove acceptance, issue a verifiable invoice, 30 days. Since 25 February 2026 that comes with the certainty that a "not approved yet" changes none of it.