einvoice / EN 16931 / XRechnung rule reference

BR-CO-26

What this rule means and how to fix it

In order for the buyer to automatically identify a supplier, the Seller identifier (BT-29), the Seller legal registration identifier (BT-30) and/or the Seller VAT identifier (BT-31) shall be present.

Damit der Erwerber den Lieferanten automatisch identifizieren kann, müssen die Kennung des Verkäufers (BT-29), die Rechtliche Registrierungskennung des Verkäufers (BT-30) und/oder die Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer des Verkäufers (BT-31) vorhanden sein.

Deutsche Fassung: Übersetzung der gleichen BT/BG-Semantik (translation — not the official assert).

Requires
In order for the buyer to automatically identify a supplier, the Seller identifier (BT-29), the Seller legal registration identifier (BT-30) and/or the Seller VAT identifier (BT-31) shall be present.
Business terms
BT-29 BT-30 BT-31
Syntax
Binds the UBL-2.1 Invoice / CreditNote syntax and the UN/CEFACT-CII syntax
Location (UBL-2.1 path)
cac:AccountingSupplierParty
Fix
Correct `cac:AccountingSupplierParty` so that In order for the buyer to automatically identify a supplier, the Seller identifier (BT-29), the Seller legal registration identifier (BT-30) and/or the Seller VAT identifier (BT-31) shall be present.
Fix (Deutsch)
Ergänzen Sie das erforderliche Element bei `cac:AccountingSupplierParty`: Damit der Erwerber den Lieferanten automatisch identifizieren kann, müssen die Kennung des Verkäufers (BT-29), die Rechtliche Registrierungskennung des Verkäufers (BT-30) und/oder die Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer des Verkäufers (BT-31) vorhanden sein.
Severity
fatal
Provenance source
en16931-ubl
Provenance assert

In order for the buyer to automatically identify a supplier, the Seller identifier (BT-29), the Seller legal registration identifier (BT-30) and/or the Seller VAT identifier (BT-31) shall be present.

The Location above is a UBL-2.1 path, and no UN/CEFACT-CII path for this rule is published here; Fix and Fix (Deutsch), verbatim from remediation_catalog.json and not reworded here; the UN/CEFACT-CII binding of this rule is differentially proven against the official CEN EN 16931 1.3.16 Schematron.

Where to check the fix: paste the corrected invoice into the browser validator at /einvoice/validate/ — it runs this same engine locally in your browser, with no upload, and stops reporting BR-CO-26 once the edit lands.

Korrektur prüfen: Laden Sie die geänderte Rechnung in den Browser-Validator unter /einvoice/validate/ — er führt dieselbe Engine lokal im Browser aus, ohne Upload, und meldet BR-CO-26 nicht mehr, sobald die Korrektur greift.

The same invoice, failing and fixed

Neither block below is hand-written, and neither is an illustration: both are cut verbatim out of corpus/cen-en16931/test/Invoice-unit-UBL/BR-CO-26.xml, the vendored unit test the CEN EN 16931 project ships for this rule. The people who wrote the Schematron wrote these two documents and labelled them <error>BR-CO-26</error> and <success>BR-CO-26</success>. They are published here only because this engine agreed with that labelling: it reported BR-CO-26 for the first document and did not report it for the second, under --profile en16931.

UBL Invoice — fails

The upstream case description: “Trigger error if neither the Seller identifier (BT-29), the Seller legal registration identifier (BT-30) or the Seller VAT identifier (BT-31) is present.”

<Invoice
	xmlns:cac="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonAggregateComponents-2"
	xmlns:cbc="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonBasicComponents-2"
	xmlns="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Invoice-2">
	<cac:AccountingSupplierParty>
		<cac:Party>
			<!--<cac:PartyIdentification>
				<cbc:ID>1238764941386</cbc:ID>
			</cac:PartyIdentification>
			
			<cac:PartyTaxScheme>
				<cbc:CompanyID>123456785MVA</cbc:CompanyID>
			</cac:PartyTaxScheme>
			<cac:PartyLegalEntity>
				<cbc:CompanyID>123456785</cbc:CompanyID>
			</cac:PartyLegalEntity>-->
		</cac:Party>
	</cac:AccountingSupplierParty>
</Invoice>

UBL Invoice — passes

The upstream case description: “Verify that the Seller identifier (BT-29), the Seller legal registration identifier (BT-30) or the Seller VAT identifier (BT-31) shall be present.”

<Invoice
	xmlns:cac="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonAggregateComponents-2"
	xmlns:cbc="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonBasicComponents-2"
	xmlns="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Invoice-2">
	<cac:AccountingSupplierParty>
		<cac:Party>
			<cac:PartyIdentification>
				<cbc:ID>1238764941386</cbc:ID>
			</cac:PartyIdentification>
		
			<cac:PartyTaxScheme>
				<cbc:CompanyID>123456785MVA</cbc:CompanyID>
			</cac:PartyTaxScheme>
			<cac:PartyLegalEntity>
				<cbc:CompanyID>123456785</cbc:CompanyID>
			</cac:PartyLegalEntity>
		</cac:Party>
	</cac:AccountingSupplierParty>
</Invoice>

What the engine reports for the failing document

{
  "element": "cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party/cac:PartyIdentification/cbc:ID",
  "field": "cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party/cac:PartyIdentification/cbc:ID",
  "fix_hint": "Correct `cac:AccountingSupplierParty` so that In order for the buyer to automatically identify a supplier, the Seller identifier (BT-29), the Seller legal registration identifier (BT-30) and/or the Seller VAT identifier (BT-31) shall be present.",
  "insertion_point_line": 7,
  "location": "cac:AccountingSupplierParty",
  "message": "In order for the buyer to automatically identify a supplier, the Seller identifier (BT-29), the Seller legal registration identifier (BT-30) and/or the Seller VAT identifier (BT-31) shall be present.",
  "rule": "BR-CO-26",
  "severity": "fatal",
  "terms": [
    "BT-29",
    "BT-30",
    "BT-31"
  ],
  "title": "In order for the buyer to automatically identify a supplier, the Seller identifier (BT-29), the Seller legal registration identifier (BT-30) and/or the Seller VAT identifier (BT-31) shall be present."
}

Rule ids reported for the failing document: BR-01 BR-02 BR-03 BR-04 BR-05 BR-06 BR-07 BR-08 BR-10 BR-16 BR-CO-18 BR-CO-26. For the corrected document: BR-01 BR-02 BR-03 BR-04 BR-05 BR-06 BR-07 BR-08 BR-10 BR-16 BR-CO-18.

Read that pair of lists honestly. A unit case is not a complete invoice: the upstream suite strips the document down to the elements this rule reads, so the engine also reports every mandatory element the fragment leaves out — 11 other rule ids here. Those are noise for this page. The signal is the difference: BR-CO-26 is reported for the failing document and gone for the corrected one, and it is the only id that moves.

Reproduce it yourself: save the failing block as invoice.xml and run einvoice validate invoice.xml --profile en16931 --format json, or paste it into the browser validator, which runs this same engine locally with no upload. Then apply the edit the passing block shows and run it again.

Everything here is free and open source — pick up whatever helps, at your own pace: