Annual Financial Report for the period from 1st of January to the 31st of December 2012
133
The total of the above differences (reflecting the controversial behaviour of PPC and the even more controver-
sial accounting presentation for this period) is expected to be settled with the decision of the Arbitration Court,
expected in May 2013, which both parties have been committed in advance to accept.
The arbitration procedure is in progress as both parties have submitted their arguments with their Statements
of Case on 21.12.2012 and their Answers on 1.2.2013 about the arguments of the opposing party. Furthermore,
the Arbitration Court has set 02.04.2013 as a date of oral presentation of the arguments of both parties and
examination of the first witness from the Company. It is expected, thus, that within the next few months, the
arbitration procedure shall be completed and a decision shall be issued.
The issuance of the decision by the competent arbitration court is expected to decisively determine the amount
of the liability or claim pertaining to the payments that the subsidiary company has made to PPC for the period
from July 2010 up to June 2012.
On 27/7/2011, the Greek Government, via the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, announced
to ALUMINIUM S.A. SA, a subsidiary of the Group, the decision of the European Commission finding the dif-
ference between the energy sale price imposed on Aluminium S.A. by PPC in application of the high voltage
regulated tariff (A-150) and the price arising from the application of the Contract of 1960 for the period from
January 2007 to March 2008, in application of a decision of interim measures of the Single-Member First In-
stance Court of Athens claiming that the Contract of 1960 has not expired and ordering the return of the tariffs
to the framework of the said contract, discordant with the Community state aid rules. The said difference
between the two tariffs, the recovery of which is asked by the European Commission with its above decision,
amounts to €17.4 million.
The arguments of the European Commission focus on the following:
i) Selective application of the “preferential tariffing” only for Aluminium S.A..
ii) The Commission believes that the seller (PPC) had no right to charge “reduced rates”. Taken into account
that PPC declined the extension of the 1960 Contract, there are reasonable grounds (for the Commission) that
the extension of the agreement secured an advantage given that it did not correspond to the ‘usual rate” for
the big industrial consumers.
iii) Finally, the commission considers that this tariffing method distorts competition and affects the transac-
tions between member states, because the preferential tariffing was used in a company active in sectors
whose products are widely traded among member states.
