40. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND LITIGATION (CONTINUED)
The decision has not yet been served on PPC, while HEDNO filed an appeal before the Three-Member Court of
Appeal in Athens, that will be heard on 22.09.2022.
Corrective settlements of IPTO, concerning the Special Account of art. 143 L. 4001/2011
According to L.4152/2013, RES energy purchases in the Interconnected System are paid through the market
operation, on the higher amount of either their revenue from DAS plus Deviations or the value of energy they inject
to the system multiplied by the weighted average variable cost of the conventional thermal power plants. This
amendment started being applied from August 14th, 2013, when RAE’s Decision No. 366/2013 was published in
the O.G., amending the relevant articles of the Power Exchange Code and specifying the methodology of
calculations, with which the provision of the law was implemented.
In October 2013, IPTO sent to PPC S.A. corrective clearing statements for May, June, July and part of August of
2013, totalling to an amount of € 48.2 mil., which was derived from the retrospective application of the relevant
methodology. PPC’s lawsuit against IPTO for the invoices in question was accepted by the Multimember Court of
First Instance in Athens (Decision No. 2260/2016) and is considered that PPC does not have to pay the invoices
issued totalling € 54.4 mil., which incorporate claims for the weighted average variable cost of the conventional
thermal power plants for the months May to August 2013. IPTO (which, in the meantime, was substituted in this
claim by DAPEEP) filed an appeal which was finally dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Athens with its decision
4928/2020. No appeal is likely to be filed by DAPEEP.
Former Bank of Crete
The dispute with the former “Bank of Crete” is dating back to 1989, when the bank was under liquidation. More
precisely, by a mandatory action of the then Trustee of the Bank, PPC’s deposits were mandatorily converted to
stake-holding in the share capital of the Bank and to obligatory credit to the Bank. PPC filed a lawsuit in 1991
against the bank asking to be compensated for GRD 2.2 billion approximately, (Euro 6.5 mil.) because the above-
mentioned Act of the Trustee of the Bank was held invalid. Moreover, PPC had outstanding loan balances, received
under six (6) loan agreements for which it was agreed upon to be repaid gradually through instalments. However,
on June 10th, 1991, although PPC has paid the overdue instalments, the Bank has terminated all the above-
mentioned loan agreements and thus on that date the claim against PPC became overdue for the whole amount of
the loans. For that reason, in the context of hearing of PPC’s above mentioned lawsuit, the Bank proposed before
Court an offset of its claim resulting by the above-mentioned loans, amounting to GRD 4 bil. approximately, and
furthermore has asked the payment of this amount by PPC by a lawsuit in 1995.
Following two annulment decisions (Supreme Court 746/1998 & Supreme Court 1968/2007) and expert reports, the
Athens Court of Appeal issued the decision 3680/2014 which only partially accepts PPC’s lawsuit while essentially
it upholds the results of the ordered by the same Court official expert report, as follows: a) the amount due by the
Bank of Crete to PPC on July 22nd, 1991, the date PPC filed the lawsuit, amounted to GRD 1,268,027,987 and b)
the amount due by PPC to the Bank of Crete on July 1st, 1991, due to the termination of the above loan agreements
by the Bank and after the proposed by the Bank offsetting of its counterclaim against the above-mentioned PPC’s
claim, amounted to GRD 2,532,936,698. Therefore, the above decision of the Court of Appeal recognizes that on
July 22nd, 1991, the amount due by PPC to the Bank of Crete was 2,532,936,698 - 1,268,027,987 = GRD
1,264,908,711.
In 2017, PPC appealed against the above-mentioned decision of the Court of Appeal in Athens, the appeal was
heard on March 9th, 2020 before the Supreme Court and the decision is pending. It is noted that until the final
judgment on the appeal, the discussion of the aforementioned (December 28th, 1995) lawsuit of the Bank of Crete
against PPC remains suspended. In case that the Supreme Court accepts PPC’s appeal, then it will discuss the
case again and its decision will be irrevocable.
PPC, with its appeal, requests to be recognized that the Bank's loans to PPC had not been transferred to overdraft
facilities and therefore the Bank's termination of the loan agreements on June 10th, 1991, was invalid.
If PPC's appeal is accepted, this means that the Bank's lawsuit against PPC will be rejected (because this lawsuit
is based precisely on the fact that the Bank's claims from the loans had been transferred to overdraft facilities, which
the Bank legally closed with a complaint on June 10th, 1991, and consequently PPC owed to the Bank that year
the amount of GRD 2,532,936,698 which is reduced due to the proposed by the Bank offsetting of its claim against
PPC's counterclaim amounting to GRD 1,268,027,987, and therefore the difference is 2,532,936,698 -
1,268,027,987 = GRD 1,264,908,711). However, this does not mean that PPC can request from the Bank the
amount of GRD 1,268,027,987, because this PPC’s claim was settled until 1996 with offsetting proposed by PPC
against the Bank’s counterclaims that the latter had against PPC from the above loans and which arose when each
instalment of these loans became overdue. Therefore, if PPC’s appeal is accepted, then neither the Bank has a
claim against PPC nor the PPC against the Bank.