134
According to the Management, the EC decision on the recovery of the amount of € 17.4 million by the Greek
state, considered state aid, is based on the erroneous believe that the regulated high voltage tariff (A150), as in
force in the reference period of the decision (1/2007 – 3/2008) in the Greek market, namely in a non-liberated
electricity market in breach of the Community Legislation (in particular Directive 2003/54/EC) in which PPC had
a monopoly position, was a competitive, reasonable electricity supply tariff (“market tariff”). As a consequence,
the EC decision is based on the admission that ALUMINIUM S.A. SA (former ALUMINIUM S.A. OF GREECE), by
paying anything less than the said administratively regulated high-voltage tariff that PPC as a monopoly and
the Ministry of Development as a supervising and administering authority practically imposed on their custom-
ers (such as ALUMINIUM S.A.), received a kind of state aid which, furthermore, positively affected its position
compared to that of its competitors in the European market. As acknowledged by the European Commission
in the framework of the infringement procedure (No. 2195/2009), the regulated tariff A-150 should have been
abolished with the inclusion of the 2nd energy package (Directive 2003/54/EC) in order to promote the devel-
opment of a competitive electricity market and abolish the cross subsidies between consumers of even the
same category, something which RAE already stressed in 2007. Its imposition by PPC on ALUMINIUM S.A. with
the expiry of the 1960 contract is not an indication of a seller’s behaviour in a market economy but an abusive
behaviour of the state monopoly taking advantage of its dominant position in order to increase its revenues
based on a state aid. If PPC accepted to negotiate with its customers (High-Voltage Connection where the tar-
iffs should have been deregulated on 1.7.2008), the rate charging ALUMINIUM S.A. with would be determined
in market and competition terms, as shown in RAE’s decisions, No 692/2011 and No 798/2011, a fact certainly
leading to a lower tariff. Moreover, in the same period, ALUMINIUM S.A. paid (in application of the decision of
interim measures) a power rate higher than the average power supply rate for the corresponding industries in
the other member states and although the decision acknowledges the fact that ALUMINIUM S.A. does not have
a domestic competition, it erroneously determines the “relevant market”, characterizing the tariff difference
paid by ALUMINIUM S.A. compared to the other industrial consumes as an illegal state aid.
According to the above, the Management deems that the rationale of the EC decision is a straw man, erroneous
and not adequately justified. On 6.10.2011, the subsidiary company ALUMINUM brought the matter before the
General Court of the European Union asking for the annulment of the above decision.
In conclusion, the opinion of the Management is that the recourse of the company against the decision in the
competent European Court faces strong possibilities of being admitted and, therefore, the difference of 17.4
million €, mentioned in the said decision, is a possible liability with, though, zero possibility with regard to a
future outflow of financial resources for its settlement.
6.35 Dividend Proposed and Payable
Regarding the distribution of dividends, the Board of Directors proposes that no dividend is to be distributed
due to losses recorded in 2012. This proposal is subject to the approval of the General Assembly.
