Annual Financial Report for the period from1st of January to the 31st of December 2013
135
plus interest) 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 customers (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 development 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 tariffs 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 interimmeasures) 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 ALUMINIUM S.A. brought the matter before
the General Court of the European Union asking for the annulment of the above decision.
The Arbitral Award before the Energy Regulator’s Arbitration Proceedings complies with the above notion, as,
although it concerns a different time-period, it accepted that the standard industrial tariff, which PPC is trying
to impose throughout the period of its dispute with ALUMINIUM S.A., does not constitute a market tariff.
PPC is trying to enforce the aforementioned European Commission decision, through a payment order issued
by the Athens Court of First Instance (13601/2012), which was appealed by ALUMINIUM S.A.. The Athens Court
of First Instance, issued an injunction (no 857/2013) accepting ALUMINIUM’s S.A. petition for the suspension
of the payment order’s enforcement and resolved (decision no. 860/2013) that the issuance of a final decision
on the appeal would be rendered after the decision of the General Court of the European Union. PPC achieved
to overturn the above injunction and temporary ruling of the Court and is expected to try again to enforce
the payment order to ALUMINIUM S.A.. ALUMINIUM S.A. shall appeal the Courts’ decision overturning the
temporary ruling and shall also appeal any procedural measure tried by PPC aiming to the enforcement of the
payment order and shall target the issuance of a new injunction decision (enforcement suspension).
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 € 20.3
million (€ 17.4 million plus interest), 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.
There are other contingent liabilities against the Group, amounting to 12,7 m€, for which no provision is formed
on the results since the outcome of these is deemed uncertain. Moreover there are Groups’ claims against
third parties amounting to 75,38 m€.
