What BR-CO-25 required
If the amount due for payment (BT-115) was positive, the invoice had to carry either a payment due date (BT-9) or payment terms in text (BT-20). With neither present, the invoice counted as faulty.
Why the rule is gone
The European validation rules for EN 16931 are maintained by the ConnectingEurope working group. Rule set 1.3.16 dropped BR-CO-25. KoSIT adopted that state in its XRechnung configuration of 2026-08-31, published on 2026-09-02. We have been validating against it since 2026-09-09.
What this means for you
- Invoices without a due date and without payment terms are no longer faulty for that reason. There is nothing to change.
- Older validation reports may still name BR-CO-25. They are not wrong, they show the rule set of their time.
- If another tool still reports the rule, it runs on an older rule set. That is where validation services differ today.
Both versions are valid now
On the left the invoice that used to be flagged, on the right the same one with a due date. Today both pass.
<ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement>
<ram:DuePayableAmount>119.00</ram:DuePayableAmount>
</ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement><ram:SpecifiedTradePaymentTerms>
<ram:DueDateDateTime>
<udt:DateTimeString format="102">20260930</udt:DateTimeString>
</ram:DueDateDateTime>
</ram:SpecifiedTradePaymentTerms>Common questions about BR-CO-25
Do I have to change my invoices now?
Should I still give a due date?
Why does my other validator still report the error?
Does this apply to ZUGFeRD and Factur-X as well?
Related error codes
Check an invoice against the current rule set
Rule sets change twice a year. Instead of comparing lists, you can check your ZUGFeRD or XRechnung file online: every finding comes with rule id, field, line and a concrete fix, against today's rule set.