EN16931 / XRechnung / Peppol BIS 3 Validator

BR-30: If both Invoice line period start date (BT-134) and Invoice line period end…

fatal CII UBL

What this error means and how to fix it

An EN 16931 core rule: a mandatory business term is missing, or a basic condition between business terms is not met. Add or correct the element named in the rule text at the location the validation result shows. This is an error: the invoice is rejected until it is fixed.

Check your invoice against BR-30 — free

Runs the KoSIT validator 1.6.3, unmodified · result in seconds · the file is not stored · No file at hand? Try a sample invoice

This error needs information only you have, so it is not repaired automatically. The free check shows every finding in the file with its location; if other errors in the same file are in the automatic set (totals, VAT breakdown, rounding, element order), the result page offers the corrected file for 9 €.

Rule text

[BR-30]-If both Invoice line period start date (BT-134) and Invoice line period end date (BT-135) are given then the Invoice line period end date (BT-135) shall be later or equal to the Invoice line period start date (BT-134).
Where the rule is checked (XPath context and test)
SyntaxSeverityContext (XPath)Test (XPath)
EN16931-UBLfatalcac:InvoiceLine/cac:InvoicePeriod | cac:CreditNoteLine/cac:InvoicePeriod(exists(cbc:EndDate) and exists(cbc:StartDate) and xs:date(cbc:EndDate) >= xs:date(cbc:StartDate)) or not(exists(cbc:StartDate)) or not(exists(cbc:EndDate))
EN16931-CIIfatal//ram:SpecifiedLineTradeSettlement/ram:BillingSpecifiedPeriod(ram:EndDateTime/udt:DateTimeString[@format = '102']) >= (ram:StartDateTime/udt:DateTimeString[@format = '102']) or not (ram:EndDateTime) or not (ram:StartDateTime)

Business terms referenced

BT-134, BT-135

Related rules

BR-CO-20

Source: EN 16931-1 Schematron, UN/CEFACT CII syntax binding (ConnectingEurope/eInvoicing-EN16931, EUPL-1.2).

Source: EN 16931-1 Schematron, UBL syntax binding (ConnectingEurope/eInvoicing-EN16931, EUPL-1.2).

Check your invoice against this rule