# E_0265 — Check non-payment advice
Check non-payment advice
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Designation | Check non-payment advice |
| Market role | MSB |
| Regulatory determination / chapter | WiM electricity |
| Section | 8.27.2: AD: Billing of a service rendered for ESA |
| Check identifiers | Response: [29001](/en/schnittstellen/202604/pruefi/COMDIS/PI_29001) |
| EBD version | 4.2 |
| As at | 2026-06-23 |
## Decision tree
\nDecision tree E_0265: Nicht-Zahlungsavis prüfen\n\n\n\nE_0265\nNicht-Zahlungsavis prüfen\nChecking role: MSB\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\n10\nErgibt die Prüfung der\nabgelehnten Rechnung, dass die\nAblehnung durch den\nRechnungsempfänger\ngerechtfertigt war?\n\n\nA99\nDie Rechnung wird als korrekt\nangesehen.\nHinweis: Es ist zu begründen, warum\ndie Rechnung korrekt ist.\nNutzungsmöglichkeit Ende: offen\n\nVersand der Nachricht „Storno der\nursprünglichen Rechnung“\n"} kapitel={"WiM Strom · 8.27.2: AD: Abrechnung einer für den ESA erbrachten Leistung"} name={"Nicht-Zahlungsavis prüfen"}>
| Step | Check | Result | Code | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Does the check of the rejected invoice show that the rejection by the invoice recipient was justified? | no | A99 | The invoice is regarded as correct. Note: A justification is required as to why the invoice is correct. End of usability: open |
| — | — | yes | End | Sending of the message “Cancellation of the original invoice” |
## Result codes
| Result code | Cluster | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| `A99` | — | The invoice is regarded as correct. Note: A justification is required as to why the invoice is correct. End of usability: open |
*Role of the numbers: »response« are the check identifiers that list this tree in the ebd_code column of the check identifier table (knowledge-collection · FV 202604); »checked« is the difference set to it from the return path of the process steps.*
:::note{title="Not checked against a process"}
**No** consistency check was carried out for this decision tree — no generated BPMN found. Whether the MACO APP implements this tree completely is therefore not evidenced here.
:::