132
Therefore, for every 1€/ MWh, the outcomes and the financial position of the subsidiary company and the
Group are expected to be different by:
• € 1.104.777,93 for the period of 1/7/2010- 31/ 12/ 2010
• € 2.549.914,08 for the period of 1/1/2011- 31/ 12/ 2011
• € 951.993,74 for the period of 1/1/2012- 15/5/2012 (date of RAE temporary price issue) and
• € 1.618.890,87 for the period of 16/5/2012- 31/12/2012,
that is by a total of € 6. 225. 576, 63
In what concerns the amount of the total liability of ALUMINIUM S.A to PPC S.A. S.A on 31.12.2012 we should
mention that the total liability , on the books of ALUMINIUM , apart from the sum of € 30, 6 million which re-
gards the outstanding and serviced without fail and in accordance with the terms of the agreement part of the
settled balance of € 82, 6 million, as it had been defined following a settlement up until 30/6/2010, regards only
the current balance based on the application of the temporary price issued by decision of the RAE. Except for
the outstanding balance settlement in question, and pending the arbitration decision of the RAE , there exists
no other liability of ALUMINIUM S.A towards PPC S.A.. for the period of 01.07.2010 to 15.05.2012. PPC S.A. is-
sued bills in accordance with the Industry Invoice (A 150) abolished by Ministerial Decision, which was in fact
surcharged unilaterally by a 10% increment, while from 16.05.2012 onwards PPC S.A. has been issuing bills
based on the above temporary price. The difference between the liability acknowledged by ALUMINIUM S.A
and the price stemming from the afore-mentioned invoices issued by PPC S.A. for the period of 1/7/2010 to
31/12/2012 amounts to € 64,16 million.
It is noted that although PPC, showing a controversial and infringing behaviour in terms of accounting-finan-
cial and taxation terms, issued the above tariffs without any negotiation or agreement between the two parties,
it presents the claim that Aluminium S.A. should pay the amounts arising from the formula of the temporary
agreement which was rejected by RAE. In this case, the difference between the liability acknowledged by ALU-
MINIUM S.A. and the amounts demanded by PPC is € 80.1 million on 31.12.2012. The above mentioned clearly
show that PPC demands Aluminium S.A. to pay for the consumed electricity, a megawatt/hour rate which not
only overly exceeds the cap of 10% of the old industrial tariff (cap), as set with the Decision of the Ministry of
Development, No ΥΠΑΝ Δ5/ΗΛ/Β/Φ29/23860/2007, but it also charges Aluminium S.A. with the tariffs set for
the rest of the high-voltage customers, which, with the explicit admission of RAE in its decisions, do not dem-
onstrate at all the special energy characteristics of continuous base load of Aluminium S.A. and, therefore,
the tariffs for them should be, as a rule, higher. The aforementioned in combination with the emphasis given
by PPC Auditors in the Interim Financial Statements of 30.06.2012, according to which there are possible li-
abilities for PPC arising from the legal issues with Aluminium S.A., reasonably result in the conclusion that
PPC has carried out impairment estimates of the liabilities it presents in its Financial Statements compared to
what it demands as shown above. Nevertheless, contrary to its own estimate, PPC states verbatim in the notes
of its Interim Financial Statements of 30.06.2012: “Following the above, PPC continues today to charge ALU-
MINIUM S.A. with the tariff set in the decision of RAE, while the debts of ALUMINIUM S.A. on 30.06.2012, based
on the Framework Agreement, amount to 127.7 million euros. This claim includes the amount of 36.6 million
euros which concerns the unpaid balance of the regulated consumptions, settled according to the Framework
Agreement, from 01.07.08 to 30.06.10, coming up to 82.6 million euros. Furthermore, the total claim against
ALUMINIUM S.A. includes the amount of 91.1 million euros concerning current electricity bills. The biggest
part of the amount of these bills (82 million euros) is not acknowledged by ALUMINIUM S.A., which pays the
amounts calculating them on the basis of the unlawful interpretation for retroactive effect of RAE’s Decision
No 346/9.5.2012. PPC, given the fact that it incorporated the said decision of RAE in its later billings, does not
consider that the total of its claim is a doubtful debt and, therefore, it has not entered a relevant provision in
its financial statements”.
