LF (54)
E_0243 — Process cancellation
Process cancellation
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Designation | Process cancellation |
| Market role | LF |
| Regulatory determination / chapter | MaBiS |
| Section | 7.82.3: AD: Billing of metering point operation to LF |
| Check identifiers | Response: 33002 |
| EBD version | 4.3 |
| As at | — |
Decision tree
| Step | Check | Result | Code | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Is the invoice to be cancelled known to the recipient? | no | A01 | The invoice to be cancelled does not exist. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 15 | — |
| 15 | Does the invoice number used in this invoice already exist from the invoice issuer? | yes | A06 | Invoice number has already been used. |
| — | — | no | → Step 17 | — |
| 17 | Does the invoice meet further requirements pursuant to §14 Abs. 4 UStG? | no | A07 | Invoice does not comply with §14 Abs. 4 UStG. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 20 | — |
| 20 | Has the invoice to be cancelled already been cancelled? | yes | A02 | The invoice to be cancelled has already been cancelled. |
| — | — | no | → Step 30 | — |
| 30 | Is the invoice type of the cancellation invoice identical to the invoice type of the original invoice? | no | A03 | The invoice type of the cancellation invoice is not identical to the invoice type of the original invoice. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 40 | — |
| 40 | Is the billing period or the execution date of the cancellation invoice identical to the billing period or the execution date of the original invoice? | no | A04 | The billing period or the execution date of the cancellation invoice is not identical to the billing period or the execution date of the original invoice. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 50 | — |
| 50 | Are the amounts of the cancellation invoice multiplied by (-1) identical to the amounts of the original invoice? Note: The amount is the respective value of the respective MOA segment. | yes | → Step 60 | — |
| — | — | no | A05 | At least one amount in the cancellation invoice does not match the amount in the original invoice. |
| 60 | Has a previously unspecified error occurred? | yes | A99 | Rejection Other Note: The identified problem must be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.04.2027 00:00 |
| — | — | no | → Step 70 | — |
| 70 | Was the original invoice approved? | yes | End | Approve cancellation invoice and take it into account in the payment run. |
| — | — | no | → Step 80 | — |
| 80 | Was the original invoice rejected? | yes | End | Note: If the original invoice was rejected with a non-payment advice, no response is to be sent to the cancellation invoice. |
| — | — | no | End | Note: If the original invoice has not yet been answered, neither with a payment advice nor with a non-payment advice, then no response is to be sent to either the invoice or the cancellation invoice. |
Result codes
| Result code | Cluster | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
A01 | — | The invoice to be cancelled does not exist. |
A06 | — | Invoice number has already been used. |
A07 | — | Invoice does not comply with §14 Abs. 4 UStG. |
A02 | — | The invoice to be cancelled has already been cancelled. |
A03 | — | The invoice type of the cancellation invoice is not identical to the invoice type of the original invoice. |
A04 | — | The billing period or the execution date of the cancellation invoice is not identical to the billing period or the execution date of the original invoice. |
A05 | — | At least one amount in the cancellation invoice does not match the amount in the original invoice. |
A99 | — | Rejection Other Note: The identified problem must be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.04.2027 00:00 |
Notes on this page
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 202610); »checked« is the difference set to it from the return path of the process steps.
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.