NB (69)
E_0566 — Check invoice for metering point operation with iMS towards the NB
Check invoice for metering point operation with iMS towards the NB
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Designation | Check invoice for metering point operation with iMS towards the NB |
| Market role | NB |
| Regulatory determination / chapter | MaBiS |
| Section | 7.83.1: AD: Billing of metering point operation with iMS to NB |
| Check identifiers | Response: 33003 |
| EBD version | 4.3 |
| As at | — |
Decision tree
| Step | Check | Result | Code | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Does the invoice meet further requirements pursuant to §14 Abs. 4 UStG? | no | A01 | Cluster: Rejection at header level Invoice does not comply with §14 Abs. 4 UStG Note: The rejection must be substantiated. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 20 | — |
| 20 | Is the invoice date ≤ the receipt date? | no | A02 | Cluster: Rejection at header level Invoice date is in the future |
| — | — | yes | → Step 30 | — |
| 30 | Is the invoice date < the end of the billing period? | yes | A03 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The invoice date is before the end of the billing period. |
| — | — | no | → Step 40 | — |
| 40 | Is the recipient of the invoice assigned to the stated market location for at least one day of the stated billing period? | no | A04 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The NB refuses payment for the metering point operation. The NB is not assigned to the market location for a single day of the billing period. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 50 | — |
| 50 | Is the recipient of the invoice assigned to the stated market location for the entire stated billing period? | no | A05 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The NB refuses payment for the metering point operation. A rejection of the payment is substantiated by the NB. Note: The NB states the expected billing period. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 60 | — |
| 60 | Does the invoice number used in this invoice already exist from the invoice issuer? | yes | A06 | Cluster: Rejection at header level Invoice number has already been used. |
| — | — | no | → Step 70 | — |
| 70 | Is the billing period of the invoice already contained in a previous, accepted and not cancelled invoice? | yes | A07 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The invoice contains a time interval already billed. |
| — | — | no | → Step 75 | — |
| 75 | Is the start of the billing period ≥ 01.01.2024 00:00? | no | AE6 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The start of the billing period is < 01.01.2024 00:00. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 77 | — |
| 77 | Is a iMS installed at at least one metering location of the market location throughout the entire billing period? | no | AE8 | Cluster: Rejection at header level Throughout the entire billing period, no iMS is installed at any metering location of the market location. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 80 | — |
| 80 | Is the amount due ≥ zero? | no | A08 | Cluster: Rejection at header level No refund can arise in the billing of the MSB. |
| — | — | yes | → step 90 | — |
| 90 | Is the due date deadline undercut? Note: undercut due date means: payment term ≤ 10 WT from the invoice receipt date | yes | A09 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The payment term has been undercut. |
| — | — | no | → Step 100 | — |
| 100 | Is a valid price sheet “price sheet MSB services” available for every point in time of the billed time period? Note: Several consecutive price sheets may exist for one billing period. | no | A10 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The NB does not have a valid price sheet for MSB services. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 115 | — |
| 115 | Is the MSB assigned to the specified market location for at least one day of the specified billing period? | no | AE9 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The MSB is not assigned to the market location for a single day of the billing period. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 125 | — |
| 125 | Is the MSB assigned to the specified market location for the entire specified billing period? | no | AF0 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The MSB is not assigned to the market location for the entire billing period. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 130 | — |
| 130 | Is the billing of metering point operation between NB and MSB specified for this market location for the billed time period? Note: Billing is specified for this time period if at least one article ID has been exchanged in the master data for every point in time of this time period. | no | A13 | Cluster: Rejection at header level Billing of the metering point operation is not stipulated with the NB for this market location for the billed period. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 140 | — |
| 140 | Has a previously unspecified error occurred in the header section of the invoice? | yes | A90 | Cluster: Rejection at header level Other error at header level. Note: The identified problem must be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.04.2027 00:00 |
| — | — | no | → Step 301 | — |
| 301 | Was the article ID used in the invoice line item exchanged in the master data for the entire line item period of this line item? | no | AF1 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level The article ID used in the specified line item should not have been listed for the entire line item period. Note: Within the line item period the grid operator states the time period in which this article ID is not valid. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 302 | — |
| 302 | From the point of view of the NB, may the article ID be stated in this invoice because, from the point of view of the NB, it fits this market location? Note: Where applicable, the following must be checked: the average annual electricity consumption of the previous three calendar years the annual consumption forecast for the market location the installed capacity | no | AF2 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level This article ID is not permitted for this invoice type in the specified line item period. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 303 | — |
| 303 | Is the time period of the invoice line item fully contained in the validity period of one or more price sheets? | no | A27 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level The time period of the invoice line item is not fully contained in the validity period of one or more price sheets. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 304 | — |
| 304 | Does the price in the invoice line item match the price from the price sheet or price sheets valid in the time period of the invoice line item? | no | A28 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level The price in the invoice line item does not correspond to the price from the price sheet or price sheets of the MSB. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 310 | — |
| 310 | Is the correct VAT rate valid for this time period stated for the invoice line item? | no | A15 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level The valid VAT rate for the invoice line item for this time period was not stated correctly. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 330 | — |
| 330 | Is the end date of the invoice line item > the end date of the billing period? | yes | A17 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level The end date of the invoice line item is after the end date of the billing period. |
| — | — | no | → Step 340 | — |
| 340 | Is the start date of the invoice line item < the start date of the billing period? | yes | A18 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level The start date of the invoice line item is before the start date of the billing period. |
| — | — | no | → Step 345 | — |
| 345 | Does the invoice line item bill the expected billing period? | no | A25 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level An unexpected billing period is billed. Note: The NB states the expected billing period. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 360 | — |
| 360 | Is there a calculation error in the invoice line item? | yes | A20 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level There is a calculation error |
| — | — | no | → Step 370 | — |
| 370 | Has a previously unspecified error occurred in the invoice line item? | yes | A99 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level Other error at line item level. Note: The identified problem must be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.04.2027 00:00 |
| — | — | no | → Step 380 | — |
| 380 | Are there further invoice line items to be checked? | yes | → Step 301 | — |
| — | — | no | → Step 390 | — |
| 390 | Has an error occurred in at least one invoice line item? | yes | End | Note: All response codes detected at line item level must be transmitted for each detail section identified as faulty, stating the line item number. |
| — | — | no | → Step 501 | The check of the EBD is continued in the summary section. |
| from 501 | The following check takes place at the summary level of the EBD, although it is a summary check of the line item level: since no line item number can be given when the line item number from the confirmed offer is missing, the REMADV structure for transmitting errors at summary level must be used to transmit the error. | — | — | — |
| 501 | Are line items still missing that are agreed via the exchanged article IDs and are therefore expected in the invoice? | yes | AE7 | Cluster: Rejection at summary level Expected line item not present Note: The exchanged article IDs not contained in the invoice must be named. |
| — | — | no | → Step 510 | — |
| from 510 | Starting with check step 510, the following checks are performed for each summary line. If the first error occurs in a summary line, the further checks are to be performed as well, as far as this is still possible. All errors found in the summary section are transmitted to the MSB as the result with the corresponding rejection codes. The following checks are to be performed for each combination of tax rate and tax category. | — | — | — |
| 510 | For the stated tax rate, does the taxable amount match the sums of the individual line items of this invoice with this tax rate? | no | A22 | Cluster: Rejection at summary level The taxable amount named does not match the sum of the individual line items of the tax rate. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX must be named. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 520 | — |
| 520 | For this tax rate, does the stated tax amount match the sum of all invoice line items (net) of this invoice to which this tax rate is assigned, multiplied by this tax rate? | no | A23 | Cluster: Rejection at summary level The sum of all invoice line items (net) of this invoice to which this tax rate is assigned, multiplied by this tax rate, does not correspond to the tax amount stated for this tax rate. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX must be named. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 530 | — |
| 530 | Are there further tax rates to be checked? | yes | → Step 510 | — |
| — | — | no | → Step 540 | — |
| 540 | Does the invoice amount match the sum of all invoice line items (taxable amount) plus the respective tax amount? | no | A24 | Cluster: Rejection at summary level The invoice amount (taxable amount including tax amount) of the total is not correct. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 550 | — |
| 550 | Has a previously unspecified error occurred in the summary section? | yes | A96 | Cluster: Rejection at summary level Other Note: The identified problem must be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.04.2027 00:00 |
| — | — | no | → Step 560 | — |
| 560 | Has at least one error occurred in the summary level? | yes | End | Cluster: Rejection at summary level Note: All response codes identified at summary level must be transmitted. |
| — | — | no | End | Cluster: Consent Announce payment of the invoice and take it into account in the payment run. |
Result codes
| Result code | Cluster | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
A01 | Rejection at header level | Invoice does not comply with §14 Abs. 4 UStG Note: The rejection must be justified. |
A02 | Rejection at header level | Invoice date is in the future |
A03 | Rejection at header level | The invoice date is before the end of the billing period. |
A04 | Rejection at header level | The NB rejects payment for metering point operation. The NB is not assigned to the market location for a single day of the billing period. |
A05 | Rejection at header level | The NB rejects payment for metering point operation. A rejection of the payment is justified by the NB. Note: The NB states the expected billing period. |
A06 | Rejection at header level | Invoice number has already been used. |
A07 | Rejection at header level | The invoice contains a time interval that has already been billed. |
AE6 | Rejection at header level | The start of the billing period is < 01.01.2024 00:00. |
AE8 | Rejection at header level | Throughout the entire billing period, no iMS is installed at any metering location of the market location. |
A08 | Rejection at header level | The billing of the MSB cannot result in a refund. |
A09 | Rejection at header level | The payment term is undercut. |
A10 | Rejection at header level | The NB does not have a valid price sheet for MSB services. |
AE9 | Rejection at header level | The MSB is not assigned to the market location for a single day of the billing period. |
AF0 | Rejection at header level | The MSB is not assigned to the market location during the entire billing period. |
A13 | Rejection at header level | The billing of metering point operation is not specified with the NB for this market location for the billed time period. |
A90 | Rejection at header level | Other error at header level. Note: The identified problem is to be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.04.2027 00:00 |
AF1 | Rejection at line item level | The article ID used in the stated item should not have been listed for the entire item period. Note: Within the item period, the grid operator states the time period in which this article ID is not valid. |
AF2 | Rejection at line item level | This article ID is not permitted for this invoice type in the item period concerned. |
A27 | Rejection at line item level | The time period of the invoice line item is not fully contained in the validity period of one or more price sheets. |
A28 | Rejection at line item level | The price in the invoice line item does not match the price from the price sheet or price sheets of the MSB. |
A15 | Rejection at line item level | The valid VAT rate for the invoice line item for this time period was not specified correctly. |
A17 | Rejection at line item level | The end date of the invoice line item is after the end date of the billing period. |
A18 | Rejection at line item level | The start date of the invoice line item is before the start date of the billing period. |
A25 | Rejection at line item level | An unexpected billing period is being billed. Note: The NB states the expected billing period. |
A20 | Rejection at line item level | There is a calculation error |
A99 | Rejection at line item level | Other error at line item level. Note: The identified problem is to be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.04.2027 00:00 |
AE7 | Rejection at summary level | Expected line item not present Note: The exchanged article IDs not included in the invoice must be stated. |
A22 | Rejection at summary level | Stated taxable amount does not match the sum of the individual items of the tax rate. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX must be stated. |
A23 | Rejection at summary level | The total of all invoice line items (net) of this invoice to which this tax rate is assigned, multiplied by this tax rate, does not match the stated tax amount for this tax rate. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX are to be stated. |
A24 | Rejection at summary level | Invoice amount (taxable amount including tax amount) of the total is not correct. |
A96 | Rejection at summary level | Other Note: The identified problem is to 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.