226 / 278
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL REPORT | EXPLANATORY NOTES
226
Pirelli & C. S.p.A. for the alleged infringement in the period 18 February 1999 - 28 July 2005, sentencing
them to pay a fine of Euro 67.3 million, and it held Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l. jointly liable with Prysmian
S.p.A. and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for the alleged infringement in the period 29 July 2005 - 28
January 2009, sentencing them to pay a fine of Euro 37.3 million. Prysmian has filed an appeal against this
decision with the General Court of the European Union along with an application to intervene in the appeals
respectively lodged by Pirelli & C. S.p.A. and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. against the same decision.
Both Pirelli & C. S.p.A. and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have in turn submitted applications to intervene
in the appeal brought by Prysmian against the European Commission's decision. The applications to
intervene presented by Prysmian, Pirelli & C. S.p.A. and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have all been
accepted by the General Court of the European Union. Prysmian has not incurred any financial outlay as a
result of this decision having elected, pending the outcome of the appeals, to provide bank guarantees as
security against payment of 50% of the fine imposed by the European Commission (amounting to
approximately Euro 52 million) for the alleged infringement in both periods. As far as Prysmian is aware,
Pirelli & C. S.p.A. has also provided the European Commission with a bank guarantee for 50% of the value
of the fine imposed for the alleged infringement in the period 18 February 1999 - 28 July 2005. Pirelli & C.
S.p.A. has also brought a civil action against Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l. in the Milan Courts, in which it
demands to be held harmless for all claims made by the European Commission in implementation of its
decision and for any expenses related to such implementation. Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l. started legal
proceedings in February 2015, requesting that the claims brought by Pirelli & C. S.p.A. be rejected in full and
that it should be Pirelli & C. S.p.A. which holds harmless Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l., with reference to the
alleged infringement in the period 18 February 1999 - 28 July 2005, for all claims made by the European
Commission in implementation of its decision and for any expenses related to such implementation. The
proceedings have since been stayed by order of the court concerned in April 2015, pending the outcome of
the appeals brought against the European Commission's decision by both Prysmian and Pirelli in the
European Courts. Pirelli has challenged this decision before the Court of Cassation, Italy's highest court of
appeal.
It also noted that the Australian and Spanish antitrust authorities have respectively initiated proceedings to
verify the existence of anti-competitive practices by local cable manufacturers and distributors, including the
Group's foreign subsidiaries based in these countries. As regards the proceedings initiated by the Australian
antitrust authorities, the hearing began at the end of November 2015. The Directors are of the opinion not to
make any provision for the risks arising from these proceedings.
Also in 2015, National Grid and Scottish Power, two British operators, have filed claims in the High Court in
London against certain cable manufacturers, including Prysmian Group, to obtain compensation for
damages purportedly suffered as a result of the alleged anti-competitive practices condemned by the
European Commission in the decision adopted in April 2014. The Group companies concerned were notified
of this initial court filing during the month of May 2015 and presented their defence early in October 2015,
along with the summons of other parties censured in the European Commission's decision. Among the
parties involved in this action, Pirelli & C. S.p.A. has requested the London High Court to decline its
jurisdiction or nonetheless to stay the proceedings in its regard pending the outcome of the civil action
previously brought by Pirelli against Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l. in the Milan Courts, in which it demands