BR-DE-23-aWenn BT-81 "Payment means type code" einen Schlüssel für Überweisungen enthält (30, 58), muss BG-17 "CREDIT TRANSFER" übermittelt werden.

Official rule text

For a credit transfer (BT-81 with code 30 or 58) the document must carry group BG-17 with the payee's bank account. Asking for a transfer means saying where to — and the IBAN inside it is required by BR-50 and BR-61 from the norm, not by this rule.

Severity
Error
Applies to
CII, UBL
Rule set
v2026-08-31
Checked on

Written and checked against the official KoSIT rule set by Dmytro Yalanskyi, NormAPI.

Why does BR-DE-23-a happen?

The bank details live only in the PDF footer or in free-text payment terms, not as a structured group. Code 58 was set, BG-17 never mapped. The expression below shows none of this — it is just cac:PayeeFinancialAccount, the bare existence of the group. The condition sits in the rule's context, in the cac:PaymentMeans pattern with its predicate on codes 30 and 58, and the rule reports once per payment route: offer two and the same code can appear twice in the report.

What the validator checks

The expression the official KoSIT rule set evaluates — not paraphrased, but read from the Schematron file it ships. UBL and CII address different document trees, so the same rule reads differently in each.

UBL
cac:PayeeFinancialAccount
CII
ram:PayeePartyCreditorFinancialAccount

Source: rule set v2026-08-31

How do you fix BR-DE-23-a?

Transmit BG-17 with at least the payee account's IBAN (BT-84): cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PayeeFinancialAccount/cbc:ID in UBL, ram:PayeePartyCreditorFinancialAccount/ram:IBANID in CII.

In the XML

A UBL fragment. The CII path is named above — same change, different element names.

Fails
<cac:PaymentMeans>
  <cbc:PaymentMeansCode>58</cbc:PaymentMeansCode>
</cac:PaymentMeans>
Fixed
<cac:PaymentMeans>
  <cbc:PaymentMeansCode>58</cbc:PaymentMeansCode>
  <cac:PayeeFinancialAccount>
    <cbc:ID>DE02120300000000202051</cbc:ID>
  </cac:PayeeFinancialAccount>
</cac:PaymentMeans>

Related rules

NormAPI provides technical validation, not tax or legal advice.