Anche per il 2014 l’ENI ha dovuto rilasciare il suo 20F Form alla SEC, la Security and Exchange Commission of the United States of America. E’ un documento annuale che contiene tutte le informazioni che possono essere utili agli investitori che cosi possono decidere se comprare, vendere o mantere le azioni sui mercati USA.
L’ENI e’ quotata a Wall Street e cosi anche lei deve presentare il suo 20F.
Per l’anno che e’ terminato il 31 Dicembre 2014, ci sono circa 400 pagine. Da pagina 282 a pagina 292, fitte fitte, ci sono i cosiddetti “Criminal proceedings”, “Administrative Proceedings”, “Tax Proceedings”, “Court Inquries”, “Antitrust proceedings”.
A suo tempo l’ENI mi ha fatto sapere che non apprezza che io traduca in italiano quello che c’e’ scritto su questi 20F, con tanto di carte firmate e intestate da una mezza dozzina di avvocati.
Cosi, semplicemente ecco qui, non tradotta, una lista di “proceedings” vari in cui il principale ente petrolifero d’Italia e’ coinvolto. C’e’ tutto il mondo.
Una parte di me e' orgogliosa del fatto che non ci sia la contrada Feudo, Ortona, Abruzzo e per la quale ho messo su una delle cose piu' belle della mia vita.
Perche' faccio questo? Perche' l'ENI voleva venire nei campi della mia infanzia a spiantare le vigne per impiantare pozzi di petrolio e tubature e per costruire una raffineria con quattordici punti di emissione, proprio a contrada Feudo, Ortona.
Mi si spezza il cuore a leggere tutto il petrol-schifo dell'ambiente e della democrazia lucana e nei palazzi di Roma. E spero che queste cose siano di monito per tutte le comunita' che sono ancora in tempo.
Ecco qui i "proceedings" e le inquries dell'ENI per il 2014. C'e' un po di tutto, asbestos, DDT, Augusta, Praia a Mare, EniChem, Crotone, mercato del gas, monnezza varia. In alcuni casi sono solo
investigazioni da parte dei giudici, in altre sono cause contro di lei.
Sono sicura che come a Viggiano sono innocenti di tutto, che sono tutte fatalita’ e invenzioni dei PM in tutto il mondo.
investigazioni da parte dei giudici, in altre sono cause contro di lei.
Sono sicura che come a Viggiano sono innocenti di tutto, che sono tutte fatalita’ e invenzioni dei PM in tutto il mondo.
----
ENI is the defendant in a number of civil actions and administrative proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition to existing provisions accrued as of December 31, 2014 to account for ongoing proceedings, it is possible that in future years ENI may incur significant losses in addition to the amounts already accrued in connection with pending legal proceedings due to: (i) uncertainty regarding the final outcome of each proceeding; (ii) the occurrence of new developments that management could not take into consideration when evaluating the likely outcome of each proceeding in order to accrue the risk provisions as of the date of the latest financial statements; (iii) the emergence of new evidence and information; and (iv) underestimation of probable future losses due to the circumstance that they are often inherently difficult to estimate. Certain legal proceedings where ENI or its subsidiaries or its officers are parties involve the alleged breach of anti-corruption laws and regulations and ethical misconduct. Ethical misconduct and non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including non-compliance with anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws, by ENI, its partners, agents or others that act on the Group’s behalf, could expose ENI and its employees to criminal and civil penalties and could be damaging to ENI’s reputation and shareholder value.
1.1 Criminal proceedings in the matters of environment, health and safety
(i) Fatal accident Truck Center Molfetta - Prosecuting body: Public Prosecutor of Trani.
On May 11, 2010, Eni SpA, eight employees of the Company and a former employee were notified of closing of the investigation into alleged manslaughter, grievous bodily harm and illegal disposal of waste materials in relation to a fatal accident occurred in March 2008 that caused the death of four workers deputed to the cleaning of a tank car owned by a company part of the Italian Railways Group. The tank was used for the transportation of liquid sulphur produced by Eni in the Refinery of Taranto. On December 5, 2011, the Judge pronounced an acquittal sentence for the individuals involved and for Eni SpA, as the indictment is groundless. The first hearing of the appeal filed by the
Public Prosecutor has yet to be scheduled.
(ii) Syndial SpA (company incorporating EniChem Agricoltura SpA - Agricoltura SpA in liquidation - EniChem Augusta Industriale Srl - Fosfotec Srl) - Proceeding about the industrial site of Crotone.
A criminal proceeding is pending before the Public Prosecutor of Crotone relating to allegations of environmental disaster, poisoning of substances used in the food chain and omitted clean-up due to the activity at a landfill site which was taken over by Eni’s subsidiary in 1991 following the divestment of an industrial complex by Montedison (now Edison SpA). The landfill site had been filled with industrial waste from Montedison activities till 1989 and then no additional waste was discharged there. Eni’s subsidiary carried out the clean-up of the landfill in 1999 through 2000. The defendants are certain managers at Eni’s subsidiaries which have owned and managed the landfill since 1991. An assessment was performed by independent consultants and the proceeding is still pending.
(iii) Eni SpA - Gas & Power Division - Industrial site of Praia a Mare.
Based on complaints filed by certain offended persons, the Public Prosecutor of Paola started an enquiry about alleged diseases related to tumors which those persons contracted on the workplace. Those persons were employees at an industrial complex owned by a Group subsidiary many years ago. On the basis of the findings of independent appraisal reports, in the course of 2009 the Public Prosecutor resolved that a number of ex-manager of that industrial complex would stand trial. In the
preliminary hearing held in November 2010, 189 persons entered the trial as plaintiff; while 107 persons were declared as having been offended by the alleged crime. The plaintiffs have requested that both Eni and Marzotto SpA would bear civil liability. However, compensation for damages suffered by the offended persons has yet to be determined. Upon conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the Public Prosecutor resolved that all defendants would stand trial for culpable manslaughter, culpable injuries, environmental disaster and negligent conduct about safety
measures on the workplace. Following a settlement agreement with Eni, Marzotto SpA entered settlement agreements with all plaintiffs, except for the local administrations. On December 19, 2014, the Tribunal issued an acquittal sentence for all defendants, as the indictment was found groundless. The next step will be the filing of the outcomes of the judgment.
(iv) Syndial SpA and Versalis SpA - Porto Torres dock - Prosecuting body: Public Prosecutor of Sassari.
In July 2012, the Judge for the Preliminary Hearing, following a request of the Public Prosecutor of Sassari, requested the performance of a probationary evidence relating to the functioning of the hydraulic barrier of Porto Torres site (ran by Syndial SpA) and its capacity to avoid the dispersion of contamination released by the site in the near portion of sea. Syndial SpA and Versalis SpA have been notified that its chief executive officers and other managers are being investigated. The Public Prosecutor of the Municipality of Sassari requested that the above mentioned individuals would stand trial. The Judge for preliminary investigation authorized that the two Eni’s subsidiaries would be arraigned to compensate any possible damage in connection with the proceeding. The proceeding is still pending.
(v) Syndial SpA - Public Prosecutor of Gela.
An investigation before the Public Prosecutor of Gela is pending regarding a number of former Eni employees. In particular, the proceeding involves 17 former managers of the companies ANIC SpA, EniChem SpA, EniChem Anic SpA, Anic Agricoltura SpA, Agip Petroli SpA and Praoil Aromatici e Raffinazione Srl who were previously in charge of conducting operations and granting security at a plant for the production of chlorine and caustic soda in Gela. The proceeding regards alleged crimes of culpable manslaughter and grievous bodily harm related to the death of 12 former employees and alleged diseases which those persons may have contracted at the above mentioned plant. Alleged crimes relate to the period from 1969, when the plant commenced operations till 1998 when the plant was shut down and clean-up activities were performed. The Public Prosecutor requested the performance of a medico-legal appraisal on over 100 people that were employed at the above mentioned plant. This appraisal was performed by independent consultants designated by the Judge for preliminary investigation and did not find any evidence that the various diseases which underwent
the medical appraisal could be directly linked to the exposure to emissions related to the production of chlorine and caustic soda. The consultants also found that production activities were in compliance with applicable laws and regulations on health and safety. The outcomes of the assessment are being assessed by the Public Prosecutor.
(vi) Seizure of areas located in the Municipalities of Cassano allo Jonio and Cerchiara di Calabria -
Prosecuting body: Public Prosecutor of Castrovillari.
Certain areas owned by Eni in the Municipalities of Cassano allo Jonio and Cerchiara di Calabria have been seized by the Judicial Authority pending an investigation about an alleged improper handling of industrial waste from the processing of zinc ferrites at the industrial site of Pertusola Sud, alleged illegally stored. The circumstances under investigation are the same considered in a criminal action for alleged omitted clean-up which was concluded in 2008 without any negative outcome on part of Eni’s employees. Eni’s subsidiary Syndial SpA has removed any waste materials from the landfills and Syndial entered into an agreement with the Municipality of Cerchiara to settle all damages caused by the unauthorized waste disposal in the landfills to the territory of the Municipality. The Municipality of Cerchiara renounced all claims in relation to the circumstances investigated in the criminal proceeding. Eni’s subsidiary has also arranged a similar transaction with the Municipality of Cassano. Syndial is performing clean-up and remediation activities. The criminal proceeding is still pending.
(vii) Syndial SpA - Proceeding on the asbestos at the Ravenna site.
A criminal proceeding is pending before the Tribunal of Ravenna about the crimes of culpable manslaughter, injuries and environmental disaster which would have been allegedly committed by former Syndial employees at the site of Ravenna. The site was taken over by Syndial following a number of corporate mergers and acquisitions. The alleged crimes date back to 1991. In the proceeding there are 75 affected victims. The plaintiffs include relatives of the alleged victims and various local administrations and other institutional bodies, including local trade unions. The advocacy of Syndial claimed the statute of limitation about the instance of environmental disaster for certain instances of diseases and deaths. On February 6, 2014 the Judge for the Preliminary Hearing at Ravenna decided that all defendants would stand trial and ascertained the statute of limitation only with reference to certain instances of crime of culpable injury. The proceeding is entering the hearing phase.
1.2 Civil and administrative proceedings in the matters of environment, health and safety
(i) Syndial SpA (former EniChem SpA) - Summon for alleged environmental damage caused by DDT pollution in the Lake Maggiore - Prosecuting body: Ministry of the Environment.
In May 2003, the Ministry of the Environment summoned Syndial (former EniChem) to obtain a sentence condemning the Eni subsidiary to compensate an alleged environmental damage caused by the activity of the Pieve Vergonte plant in the years 1990 through 1996. With a temporarily executive sentence dated July 3, 2008, the District Court of Turin sentenced the subsidiary Syndial SpA to compensate environmental damages amounting to euro 1,833.5 million, plus legal costs that accrued from the filing of the decision. Syndial and Eni technical-legal consultants have considered the decision and the amount of the compensation to be without factual and legal basis and have concluded that a negative outcome of this proceeding is unlikely. Particularly, Eni and its subsidiary deem the amount of the environmental damage to be absolutely groundless as the sentence lacks sufficient elements to support such a material amount of the liability charged to Eni and its subsidiary with respect to the volume of pollutants ascertained by the Italian Environmental Minister. Based on these technical-legal advices which is also supported by external accounting consultants, no provisions have been made with respect to the proceeding. In July 2009, Syndial filed an appeal
against the above mentioned sentence, and consequently the proceeding continued before a second degree court. In the hearing of June 15, 2012, before the Second Degree Court of Turin, the Minister of the Environment, formalized trough the Board of State Lawyers its decision to not enforce the sentence until a final verdict on the matter is reached. The Second Degree Court requested Syndial to stand as defendant and then requested a technical appraisal of the matter. This technical appraisal was favorable to Syndial; however such outcome was questioned by the Board of State Lawyers. The Appeal court of Turin summoned the parties and indicated in the subpoena an interpretation of the environmental damage which seemed to mirror the position of the Eni’s subsidiary.
(ii) Action commenced by the Municipality of Carrara for the remediation and reestablishment of
previous environmental conditions at the Avenza site and payment of environmental damage.
The Municipality of Carrara commenced an action before the Court of Genoa requesting Syndial SpA to remediate and restore previous environmental conditions at the Avenza site and the payment of environmental damage (amounting to euro 139 million), further damages of various types (e.g. damage to the natural beauty of this site) amounting to euro 80 million, as well as damages relating to loss of profit and property amounting to approximately euro 16 million. This request is related to an accident that occurred in 1984, as a consequence of which EniChem Agricoltura SpA (later merged into Syndial SpA), at the time owner of the site, carried out safety and remediation works. The Ministry for the Environment joined the action and requested environmental damage payment – from a minimum of euro 53.5 million to a maximum of euro 93.3 million – to be broken down among the various companies that ran the plant in the past. With a sentence of March 2008, the Court of Genoa rejected all claims made by the Municipality of Carrara and the Ministry for the Environment. The Second Instance Court also confirmed the decision issued in the first judgment and rejected all the claims made by the plaintiffs. The Ministry for the Environment filed an appeal before a third instance court on the belief that Syndial is to be held responsible for the environmental damage as the Eni subsidiary took over the site from the previous owners assuming all existing liabilities; it was responsible for managing the plant and inadequately remediating the site after the occurrence of an incident in 1984 and for omitted clean-up. Syndial established itself as defendant.
(iii) Ministry for the Environment - Augusta harbor.
The Italian Ministry for the Environment with various administrative acts required companies that were running plants in the petrochemical site of Priolo to perform safety and environmental remediation works in the Augusta harbor. Companies involved include Eni subsidiaries Versalis,
Syndial and Eni Refining & Marketing Division. Pollution has been detected in this area primarily due to a high mercury concentration which is allegedly attributed to the industrial activity of the Priolo petrochemical site. The above mentioned companies opposed said administrative actions, objecting in particular to the way in which remediation works have been designed and modes whereby information on pollutants concentration has been gathered. A number of administrative proceedings were started on this matter, which were reunified before the Regional Administrative Court of Catania. In October 2012, said Court ruled in favor of Eni’s subsidiaries against the Ministry prescriptions about the removal of pollutants and the construction of a physical barrier. The proceeding is still pending.
(iv) Claim for preventive technical inquiry - Court of Gela.
In February 2012, Eni’s subsidiaries Raffineria di Gela SpA and Syndial SpA and the parent company Eni SpA (involved in this matter through the operations of the Refining & Marketing Division) were notified of a claim issued by 18 parents of children born malformed in the Municipality of Gela between 1992 and 2007. The claim for preventive technical inquiry aims at verifying the relation of causality between the malformation pathologies suffered by the children of the plaintiffs and the environmental pollution caused by the Gela site (pollution deriving from the existence and activities at the industrial plants of the Gela Refinery and Syndial SpA), quantifying the alleged damages suffered and eventually identifying the terms and conditions to settle the claim. In any case, the same issue was the subject of previous criminal proceedings, of which one closed without ascertainment of any illicit behavior on part of Eni or its subsidiaries, while a further criminal proceeding is still pending. A technical appraisal of the matter is pending
(v) Environmental claim relating to the Municipality of Cengio - Plaintiffs: the Ministry for the
Environment and the Delegated Commissioner for Environmental Emergency in the territory of the
Municipality of Cengio.
The Ministry for the Environment and the Delegated Commissioner for Environmental Emergency in the territory of the Municipality of Cengio summoned Eni’s subsidiary Syndial before a Civil Court
and sentenced the Eni’s subsidiary to compensate for the environmental damage relating to the site of Cengio. The plaintiffs accused Syndial of negligence in performing the clean-up and remediation of the site. On the contrary, Syndial believes they have executed the clean-up work properly and efficiently in accordance with the framework agreement signed with the involved administrations including the Ministry of the Environment in 2000. On February 6, 2013, a Court in Genoa ruled the resumption of the proceeding and established a technical appraisal to verify the existence of the environmental damage. Following failed attempts to define a settlement agreement of the matter among the involved parties, the Judge resumed the trial.
(vi) Syndial SpA and Versalis SpA - Porto Torres - Prosecuting body: Public Prosecutor of Sassari.
The Public Prosecutor of Sassari (Sardinia) resolved that a number of officers and senior managers of companies engaging in petrochemical operations at the site of Porto Torres, including the manager responsible for plant operations of the Company’s fully-owned subsidiary Syndial, would stand trial due to allegations of environmental damage and poisoning of water and crops. The Province of Sassari, the Municipality of Porto Torres and other entities have been acting as plaintiffs. The Judge for the Preliminary Hearing admitted as plaintiffs the above mentioned parts, but based on the exceptions issued by Syndial on the lack of connection between the action as plaintiff and the charge, denied that the claimants would act as plaintiff with regard to the serious pathologies related to the existence of poisoning agents in the marine fauna of the industrial port of Porto Torres. The trial before a jurisdictional body of the Italian criminal law which is charged with judging the most serious crimes, was annulled as that jurisdictional body did not recognize the gravity elements justifying its judgment due to a different crime allegation in the notice of conclusion of the preliminary investigation with respect to the crime allegation presented in the request of trial filed by the Public Prosecutor. In February 2013, the Prosecutor of Sassari has notified the conclusion of preliminary investigations and requested a new imputation for negligent behavior instead of illicit conduct. In the conclusions of the preliminary hearing, the GUP of Sassari dismissed the accusation as a result of the
statute of limitations. The Public Prosecutor filed an appeal before a Third Instance Court.
(vii) Kashagan.
On March 7, 2014, the Atyrau Region Environmental Department (ARED) launched a series
of civil claims against the Consortium developing the Kashagan field. These proceedings allege to certain emissions associated with gas flaring occurring during commissioning have resulted in infringements of environmental laws and environmental damages. The aggregate value of the civil claims is approximately $730 million (KZT 134 billion), of which Eni’s share would be approximately $123 million (KZT 22.5 billion). The Kashagan project’s consortium disputes these allegations. In 2014, the Consortium paid part of the claim amounting to $55 million (KZT 8.5 billion), $9 million being Eni’s share (KZT 1.4 billion) and commenced a legal dispute before a Kazakh court. Also considering a settlement agreement defined between the Consortium and the Kazakh Republic in December 2014, the Consortium is expecting that the amount of the claim will be significantly reduced and will not be higher than the amount already paid in 2014.
(viii) Syndial SpA and Versalis SpA - Summon for alleged environmental damage caused by illegal waste disposal in the municipality of Melilli (Sicily).
In May 2014, the Municipality of Melilli summoned Eni’s subsidiaries Syndial, Versalis and SMA.RI Srl for the environmental damage allegedly caused by carrying out illegal waste disposal activities and unauthorized landfill. In particular, the arraignment concerns the responsibilities of Syndial and Versalis for the production of waste, acting in quality of commissioners, because the source of the dangerous waste (in particular, the waste with high mercury concentration and railway sleepers no longer in use) would have been allegedly traced back to the Priolo and Gela industrial sites that are managed by the above mentioned Eni’s subsidiaries. This proceeding is part of a larger criminal procedure which took place in 2001-2003 with regard to the so-called “the Red Sea case”. Such waste would have been illegally disposed at the SMA.RI’s unauthorized landfill (this landfill is located about 2 kilometers from the town of Melilli). The damage is estimated at euro 500 million or another amount which will be defined during the trial. The proceeding is still pending.
2. Court inquiries and of other Regulatory Authorities
(i) Fos Cavaou.
An arbitration proceeding before the International Chamber of Commerce of Paris between the
client company Société du Terminal Méthanier Fos Cavaou (now FOSMAX LNG) and the contractor STS – a French consortium participated by Saipem SA (50%), Technimont SpA (49%) and Sofregaz SA (1%) – is pending. The memorandum filed by FOSMAX LNG supporting the arbitration proceeding claimed the payment of euro 264 million for damage payment, delay penalties and costs incurred for the termination of the works. Approximately euro 142 million of the total amount requested related to loss of profit, which is an item that cannot be compensated based on the existing contractual provisions with the exception of fraudulent and serious culpable behavior. STS filed counterclaim for a total amount of approximately euro 338 million as damage repayment due to the alleged F-88 excessive interference of FOSMAX LNG in the execution of the works and payment of extra works not recognized by the client. Both parties filed their memoranda. The arbitrators issued a final ruling on February 13, 2015 and established that FOSMAX LNG would pay an amount of euro 69.8 million to the STS consortium, including interest accrued over the period. Saipem’s share of the award is 50%.
(ii) Eni SpA - Reorganization procedure of the airlines companies Volare Group, Volare Airlines and Air Europe - Prosecuting body: Delegated Commissioner
In March 2009, Eni and its subsidiary Sofid (now Eni Adfin) were notified of a bankruptcy claw back as part of a reorganization procedure filed by the airlines companies Volare Group, Volare Airlines and Air Europe which commenced under the provisions of Ministry of Production Activities, on November 30, 2004. The request regarded the override of all the payments made by those entities to
Eni and Eni Adfin, as Eni agent for the receivables collection, in the year previous to the insolvency declaration from November 30, 2003 to November 29, 2004, for a total estimated amount of euro 46 million plus interest. Eni and Eni Adfin were admitted as defendants. After the conclusion of the investigation, a court ruled against the claims made by the commissioners of the reorganization procedures. The relevant ruling was filed on March 1, 2012. The commissioners filed a counterclaim against the first degree sentence.
(iii) Reorganization procedure of Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane SpA under extraordinary administration.
On January 23, 2013, the Italian airline company Alitalia which was undergoing a reorganization procedure, summoned Eni, Exxon Italia and Kuwait Petroleum Italia SpA before the Court of Rome, to obtain a compensation for alleged damages caused by a presumed anti competitive behavior on part of the three petroleum companies in the supply of jet fuel in the years 1998 through 2009. The claim was based on a deliberation filed by the Italian Antitrust Authority on June 14, 2006. The antitrust deliberation accused Eni and other five petroleum companies of anti competitive agreements designed to split the market for jet fuel supplies and blocking the entrance of new players in the years 1998 through 2006. The antitrust findings were substantially endorsed by an administrative court. Alitalia has made a claim against the three petroleum companies jointly and severally presenting two alternative ways to assess the alleged damages. A first assessment of the overall damages amounted to euro 908 million. This was based on the presumption that the anti competitive agreements among the defendants would have prevented Alitalia from autonomously purchasing supplies of jet fuel in the years when the existence of the anti competitive agreements were ascertained by the Italian Antitrust Authority and in subsequent years until Alitalia ceased to operate airline activity. Alitalia asserts the incurrence of higher supply costs of jet fuel of euro 777 million excluding interest accrued and other items which add to the lower profitability caused by a reduced competitive position in the
marketplace estimated at euro 131 million. An alternative assessment of the overall damage made by Alitalia stands at euro 395 million of which euro 334 million of higher purchase costs for jet fuel and euro 61 million of lower profitability due to the reduced competitive position on the marketplace. The proceeding of first instance is at a preliminary stage, as a number of pre-trial issues have caused a substantial delay.
3. Antitrust, EU Proceedings, Actions of the Authority for Electricity Gas and Water
and of other Regulatory Authorities
(i) Investigation by the Italian Antitrust about Eni’s determination of Italian market share of the Italian gas wholesale market.
On August 1, 2014, the Italian Antitrust commenced an investigation to review Eni’s determination about its share of Italian gas wholesaler market. This market share must comply with certain limits set by the Italian Law Decree No. 130/2010 and the relevant determination was filed with the Antitrust in May 2014. In case Eni filed an unfair determination of the market share it might be fined. In addition, in case Eni’s market share in the Italian wholesaler gas sector exceeds the regulatory thresholds, the Italian Antitrust might open a competitive procedure whereby the Company is obliged to dispose of certain gas volumes (the so-called gas release) in accordance with terms and conditions established by the Italian Ministry for Economic Development and the Italian Authority for Electricity Gas and Water.
(ii) Consob decision No. 18949 of June 18, 2014.
With decision No. 18949 of June 14, 2014 the Italian commission for securities and exchange (Consob) fined Eni’s subsidiary Saipem by an amount of euro 80,000 in connection with alleged delay in issuing the profit warning which was disseminated by Saipem on January 29, 2013.
A second degree court in Milan confirmed Consob decision. Saipem is planning to file recourse before a third degree court. In connection with those allegations of delay in issuing a profit warning, certain shareholders and former shareholders expressed their intention to file a complaint seeking possible damages. Saipem believes that those claims are groundless.
4. Court inquiries
(i) EniPower SpA.
In June 2004, the Milan Public Prosecutor commenced inquiries into contracts awarded by Eni’s subsidiary EniPower and on supplies from other companies to EniPower. It emerged that illicit payments were F-89 made by EniPower suppliers to a manager of EniPower who was immediately dismissed. The Court served EniPower (the commissioning entity) and Snamprogetti (now Saipem SpA) (contractor of engineering and procurement services) with notices of investigation in accordance with Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 that establishes that companies are liable for the crimes committed by their employees who acted on behalf of the employer. In August 2007, Eni was notified that the Public Prosecutor requested the dismissal of EniPower SpA and Snamprogetti SpA, while the proceeding continues against former employees of these companies and employees and managers of the suppliers under the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 231/2001. Eni SpA, EniPower and Snamprogetti presented themselves as plaintiffs in the preliminary hearing. In the preliminary hearing related to the main proceeding on April 27, 2009, the Judge for the Preliminary Hearings requested all the parties that have not requested the plea-bargain to stand in trial, excluding certain defendants as a result of the statute of limitations. During the hearing on March 2, 2010, the Court confirmed the admission as plaintiffs of Eni SpA, EniPower SpA and Saipem SpA against the inquired parts under the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 231/2001. Further employees of the companies involved were identified as defendants to account for their civil responsibility. In September 2011, the Court of Milan found that nine persons were guilty for the above mentioned crimes. In addition, they were sentenced jointly and severally to the payment of all damages to be assessed through a dedicated proceeding and to the reimbursement of the proceeding expenses incurred by the plaintiffs. The Court also resolved to dismiss all the criminal indictments for 7 employees, representing some companies involved as a result of the statute of limitations while the trial ended with an acquittal of 15 individuals. In relation to the companies involved in the proceeding, the Court found that 7 companies are liable based on the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 231/2001, imposing a fine and the disgorgement of profit. Eni SpA and its subsidiaries, EniPower and Saipem which took over Snamprogetti, acted as plaintiffs in the proceeding also against the mentioned companies. The Court rejected the position as plaintiffs of the Eni Group companies, reversing a prior decision made by the Court. This decision may have been made on the basis of a pronouncement made by a Supreme Court which stated the illegitimacy of the constitution as plaintiffs made against any legal entity which is indicted under the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 231/2001. The Court filed the ground of the judgment in December 19, 2011. The condemned parties filed an appeal against the above mentioned decision. The Appeal Court issued a ruling which
substantially confirmed the first-degree judgment except for the fact that it ascertained the statute of limitation with regard to certain defendants. An appeal is still pending before a third degree court.
(ii) TSKJ Consortium Investigations by U.S., Italian, and other Authorities
Snamprogetti Netherlands BV has a 25% participation in the TSKJ Consortium companies. The remaining participations are held in equal shares of 25% by KBR, Technip, and JGC. Beginning in 1994, the TSKJ Consortium was involved in the construction of natural gas liquefaction facilities at Bonny Island in Nigeria. Snamprogetti SpA, the holding company of Snamprogetti Netherlands BV, was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eni until February 2006, when an agreement was entered into for the sale of Snamprogetti to Saipem SpA and Snamprogetti was merged into Saipem as of October 1,
2008. Eni holds a 43% participation in Saipem. In connection with the sale of Snamprogetti to Saipem, Eni agreed to indemnify Saipem for a variety of matters, including potential losses and charges resulting from the investigations into the TSKJ matter referred to below, even in relation to Snamprogetti subsidiaries. In recent years the proceeding was settled with the U.S. Authorities and certain Nigerian Authorities, which had been investing into the matter.
The proceedings in the United States: following an investigation that lasted several years, in 2010 the Department of Justice and the SEC entered into settlements with each of the TSKJ Consortium members. In particular, in July 2010, Snamprogetti Netherlands BV entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the DoJ, consented to the filing of criminal information, and agreed to pay a fine of $240 million. In addition, Snamprogetti Netherlands BV and Eni reached an agreement with the SEC to resolve the investigation and jointly agreed to pay disgorgement to the SEC of $125 million. All amounts due to the U.S. Authorities were paid by Eni in accordance with the indemnity granted by Eni in connection with its sale of Snamprogetti to Saipem. Following the two-year period set out in the deferred prosecution agreement, in September 2012, the DoJ dismissed the criminal information filed against Snamprogetti Netherlands BV, thereby dismissing the criminal proceeding against Snamprogetti Netherlands BV.
The proceedings in Italy: the events under investigation covered the period since 1994 and also concerned the period of time subsequent to the June 8, 2001, enactment of Italian Legislative Decree No. 231 concerning the liability of legal entities. The proceeding set by the Public Prosecutor of Milan investigated Eni SpA and Saipem SpA for liability of legal entities arising from offences involving alleged international corruption charged to former managers of Snamprogetti SpA. The Public Prosecutor of Milan requested Eni SpA and Saipem SpA to be debarred from activities involving – directly or indirectly – any agreement with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corp and its subsidiaries. Subsequently, the Public Prosecutor of Milan, with respect to the guarantee payment amounting to euro 24,530,580 even in the interest of Saipem SpA, renounced to contest the decision of rejection of precautionary measures of disqualification for Eni SpA and Saipem SpA. The charged crimes involved alleged corruptive events that have occurred in Nigeria after July 31, 2004. It is also stated the aggravating circumstance that Snamprogetti SpA reported a relevant profit (estimated at approximately $65 million). The Public Prosecutor requested five former employees of Snamprogetti SpA (now Saipem) and Saipem SpA (as legal entity incorporating Snamprogetti) to stand trial. In the course of the proceeding, the Court dismissed the case with respect to the position of the individuals who were acting as defendants for the expiration of the statute of limitations while the proceeding continued for Saipem SpA. Afterwards, the Court condemned Saipem SpA to pay a fine amounting to euro 600,000 and the disgorgement of the guarantee payment of euro 24,530,580, made by Snamprogetti Netherlands BV. Saipem filed an appeal against the sentence issued by the First Instance Court. The Appeal Court confirmed the first degree sentence on February 19, 2015. The Eni’s subsidiary is planning to file recourse with a third degree court. Eni accrued a provision in respect to this proceeding.
(iii) Algeria - Corruption investigation.
Authorities in Italy and in other countries are investigating allegations of corrupt payments in connection with the award of certain contracts to Saipem. On February 4, 2011, Eni received from the Public Prosecutor of Milan an information request pursuant to Article 248 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. The request related to allegations of international corruption and pertained to certain activities performed by Saipem Group companies in Algeria (in particular the contract between Saipem and Sonatrach relating to the construction of the GK3 gas pipeline and the contract between Galsi, Saipem and Technip relating to the engineering of the ground section of a gas pipeline). For that reason, the notification was forwarded by Eni to Saipem. The crime of international corruption is among the offenses contemplated by Legislative Decree of June 8, 2001, No. 231, relating to corporate responsibility for crimes committed by employees which provides fines and interdictions to the company and the disgorgement of profit. Saipem promptly began to collect documentation in response to the requests of the Public Prosecutor. The documents were produced on February 16, 2011. Eni also filed documentation relating to the MLE project (in which the Eni’s Exploration & Production Division participates) even if not required, with respect to which investigations in Algeria are ongoing. On November 22, 2012, the Public Prosecutor of Milan served Saipem a notice stating that it had commenced an investigation for alleged liability of the company for international corruption in accordance to Article 25, second and third paragraph of Legislative Decree No. 231/2001. Furthermore, the Prosecutor requested the production of certain documents relating to certain activities in Algeria. Subsequently, on November 30, 2012, Saipem was served a
notice of seizure, then, on December 18, 2012, a request for documentation and finally, on January 16, 2013, a search warrant was issued, in order to acquire further documentation in particular relating to certain intermediary contracts and sub-contracts entered into by Saipem in connection with its Algerian business. The investigation relates to alleged corruption which, according to the Public Prosecutor, had occurred with regard to certain contracts awarded to Saipem in Algeria up until March 2010. The former CEO of Saipem, who was resigned from the office at the end of 2012, and the former COO of the business unit Engineering & Construction of Saipem, who was fired at the beginning of 2013, as well as other Saipem employees and former employees are under investigation. On February 7, 2013, on mandate from the Public Prosecutor of Milan, the Italian financial police visited Eni’s headquarters in Rome and San Donato Milanese and executed searches and seized documents relating to Saipem’s activity in Algeria. On the same occasion, Eni was served a notice that an investigation had commenced in accordance with Article 25, third and fourth paragraph of Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 with respect to Eni, Eni’s former CEO, Eni’s former CFO, and another senior manager. Eni’s former CFO had previously served as Saipem’s CFO including during the period in which alleged corruption took place and before being appointed as CFO of Eni. He departed from Eni in connection with the bribery investigation. Saipem, which is fully cooperating with the Judicial Authority since the beginning of the investigation, has also promptly undertaken management and administrative changes. Saipem has commenced an internal investigation in relation to the contracts in question with the support of external advisors; such internal investigation is conducted in agreement with the statutory bodies deputed to the Company’s control. In addition, in the course of 2013, Saipem has completed a review aimed at verifying the correct application of internal procedures and controls relating to anti-corruption and prevention of
illicit activities, with the assistance of external consultants. Saipem provided the Judicial Authority and Eni with the findings of its internal review; Eni was informed in view of exercising its control and coordination with respect to the subsidiary. Moreover, Saipem’s Board resolved to initiate legal action to protect the interests of the Company against certain former employees and suppliers, reserving any further action if additional factors emerge. Eni, albeit denying any involvement in the matter, has commenced an internal investigation with the assistance of external consultants, in addition to the review activities performed by its audit and internal control departments and a dedicated team to the Algerian matters. To date, subject further investigation if necessary, the following preliminary results have been reached: (i) the review of the documents seized by the Milan prosecutors and the examination of internal records held by Eni’s global procurement department have not found any evidence that Eni entered into intermediary or any other contractual arrangements with the third parties involved in the prosecutors’ investigation; the brokerage contracts, that have identified, were signed by Saipem or its subsidiaries or predecessor companies; and (ii) the internal review made on a voluntary basis of the MLE project, the only project that Eni understands to be under the prosecutors’ investigation where the client is an Eni Group company. That review has not found evidence that any Eni employee engaged in wrongdoing in connection with the award to Saipem of two main contracts to execute the project (EPC and Drilling). The findings of Eni’s internal review have been provided to the Judicial Authority in order to reaffirm Eni’s willingness to fully cooperate. Furthermore, with the assistance of external consultants, Eni has been reviewing the extent of its operating control over Saipem with regard to both legal and accounting and administrative issues. The findings of the review performed have confirmed the autonomy of Saipem
from the parent company. On October 24, 2014, Eni SpA and Saipem SpA received a request of probationary evidence by the Prosecutor of Milan relating to for the examination of two defendants: the former Chief Operating Officer of the Business Unit Engineering and Construction of Saipem and the former President and General Manager of Saipem Contracting Algérie. The hearing for admitting the evidence to be used in the trial was held in December 2014. On January 14, 2015, the Public Prosecutor of Milan notified the conclusion of preliminary investigations towards Eni, Saipem and eight persons (including, the former CEO and CFO of Eni and the Chief Upstream Officer of Eni who was responsible for Eni Exploration & Production activities in North Africa at the time of the events
under investigation). The Public Prosecutor of Milan has issued a notice for alleged international corruption against all defendants (including Eni and Saipem on the base of the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 231/2001) in connection with the entry into intermediary contracts by Saipem in Algeria. Furthermore, some of the defendants (including the former CEO and CFO of Eni and the Chief Upstream Officer of Eni) were accused of tax offense for fraudulent misrepresentation in relation to the accounting treatment of these contracts for the fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Having acquired the actions of the court filed in relation to the request of probationary evidence, the minutes
of the hearing and the documents filed for the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, Eni has requested its consultants to perform additional analysis and investigation, the results of which will be provided to the competent Judicial Authorities. On February 5, 2015, the Investigative Tax Police of Milan started a tax audit against Saipem in relation to: (i) matters arising the relevant aspects resulted from the criminal proceeding with respect to the tax years from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010; and (ii) economic transactions with non-EU companies operating in countries with privileged tax regimes for to the tax year 2010. The prosecutor has filed the request for trial for all the defendants of the crimes listed above. Eni has contacted the U.S. Authorities – the DoJ and the U.S. SEC – in order to voluntary inform them about this matter, considering the developments in the Italian prosecutors’ investigations since the end of 2012. Following this informal contact between Eni and the U.S. Authorities, both the U.S. SEC and the DoJ have started their own investigations regarding this matter. Eni has furnished various information and documents, including the findings of its internal reviews, in response to formal and informal requests. Investigations are also ongoing in Algeria in relation to the assignment of the contract GK3 from Sonatrach (the so-called “Sonatrach 1” investigation) where the bank accounts of a Saipem’s subsidiary, Saipem Contracting Algérie SpA, have been blocked by the Algerian Authorities with a balance equivalent to about euro 90 million at
current exchange rates. Those bank accounts related to two ongoing projects in Algeria. In 2012, a notice of investigation was served to Saipem Contracting Algérie SpA. The company is alleged to have taken advantage of the Authority or influence of representatives of a government owned industrial and trading company in order to inflate prices in relation to a contract (GK3) awarded by said company. In January 2013, the Judicial Authority in Algeria ordered Saipem’s Algerian subsidiary to stand trial and reaffirmed the blockage of the above mentioned bank accounts. Saipem Contracting Algérie SpA has lodged an appeal against this decision before the Supreme Court which reaffirmed the blockage of the bank accounts. The proceeding started on March 15, 2015 and should be concluded in the course of 2015. Furthermore, also the parent company Saipem is being investigated by the Judicial Authority in Algeria for alleged corrupt payments (the so-called “Sonatrach 2” investigation).
(iv) Iraq – Kazakhstan
A criminal proceeding is pending before the Public Prosecutor of Milan in relation to
alleged crimes of international corruption involving Eni’s activities in Kazakhstan regarding the management of the Karachaganak plant and the Kashagan project, as well as handling of assignment procedures of work contracts by Agip KCO. The Company has filed the documents collected and is fully collaborating with the Public Prosecutor. A number of managers and a former manager are involved in the investigation. The above mentioned proceeding has been combined with another (the so-called “Iraq proceeding”) regarding a parallel proceeding related to Eni’s activities in Iraq, disclosed in the following paragraphs. On June 21, 2011, Eni Zubair SpA and Saipem SpA in Fano
(Italy) were searched by the Judicial Authorities. The search involved the offices of certain Group employees and of certain third parties in connection with alleged crimes of conspiracy and corruption as part of the “Jurassic” project in Kuwait. Particularly, the alleged crimes would have been committed in order to illicitly influence the award of a construction contract outside Italy where Eni was the commissioning entity. Considering the claims of the Public Prosecutor, Eni and Saipem believed that they were damaged by the crimes committed by their employees. Eni considered those employees to have breached the Company’s Code of Ethics. In spite of this, Eni SpA and Saipem
SpA were notified of being under investigation pursuant to the Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 which establishes the liability of entities for the crimes committed by their employees. Eni SpA was notified by the Public Prosecutor of a request of extension of the preliminary investigations that has led up to the involvement of another employee, as well as other suppliers in the proceeding. The Public Prosecutor of Milan requested Eni SpA to be debarred for one year and six months from performing any industrial activities involving the production sharing contract of 1997 with the Republic of Kazakhstan and in the subsequent administrative or commercial arrangements, or the prosecution of the mentioned activities under the supervision of a commissioner pursuant to Article 15 of the Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001. On July 16, 2013, the Judge for Preliminary Investigation rejected the request for precautionary measures requested by the Public Prosecutor of Milan, because it considered the request groundless. The Public Prosecutor promptly appealed the decision before a higher degree court. After the appeal hearing, on October 21, 2013 such court rejected the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor. The Re-examination Court rejected the appeal
with judgment upon the merits due to the lack of serious evidence against Eni, accepting the defense arguments for which Eni suffered severe damages as a consequence of poor performances of some suppliers involved in the Kashagan project. In addition, the Court declared the lack of precautionary requirements considering the reorganization of the activities in Kazakhstan and taking into account of the initiatives of internal audit and control promptly adopted by Eni. The Public Prosecutor’s office did not appeal against the sentence of the Re-examination F-92 Court. Also based on this decision, on March 13, 2014, the Eni legal team requested to the Public Prosecutor to dismiss the proceeding.
(v) Alleged international corruption in the acquisition of Block OPL 245 Nigeria - Prosecuting body:
Public Prosecutor in Milan.
On July 2, 2014, the Italian Public Prosecutor in Milan served Eni with a notice of investigation relating to potential liability on the part of Eni arising from alleged international corruption, pursuant to Italian Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 whereby companies are liable for the crimes committed by their employees when performing their tasks. According to the notice, the Prosecutor has commenced investigations involving a third party external to the Group and other unidentified persons. As part of the proceeding, Eni was also subpoenaed for documents and other evidence. According to the subpoena, the proceeding was commenced following a claim filed by ReCommon NGO relating to alleged corruptive practices which according to the Prosecutor would have allegedly involved the Resolution Agreement made on April 29, 2011 relating to the Oil Prospecting license of the offshore oilfield that was discovered in Block 245 in Nigeria. Eni is fully cooperating with the Prosecutor and has promptly filed the requested documentation. Furthermore, Eni has reported the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. SEC. Finally, the Eni’s Board of Statutory Auditors jointly with the Eni Watch Structure resolved to engage outside consultants, experts in anti-corruption, to conduct a forensic, independent review of the matter, upon informing the Judicial Authorities. The findings of this review which is ongoing will be promptly provided to the Judicial Authorities. On September 10, 2014, the Public Prosecutor notified Eni of a restraining order issued by a British judge who ruled the seizure of a bank account domiciled at a British bank following a request from the Italian Public Prosecutor. The order was also communicated to certain individuals, including Eni’s CEO and the Chief Development, Operations and Technological Officer, as well as
Eni’s former CEO. From the available documents, it was deduced that such Eni’s officers and former officers are under investigation by the Italian Public Prosecutor. During a hearing before a British court, Eni and its current executive officers gave evidence of their non-involvement in this matter regarding the seized bank account. Following the hearing, the Court issued a variation order regarding certain formal issues and reaffirmed its ruling.
(vi) Eni SpA Refining and Marketing Division - Criminal proceedings on fuel excise tax (Criminal
proceeding N. 6159/10 RGNR the Italian Public Prosecutor in Frosinone and criminal proceeding
No. 7320/14 RGNR the Italian Public Prosecutor in Rome).
Two criminal proceedings are currently pending, relating to alleged evasion of excise taxes in the context of the retail sales at the fuel market. In particular, the claim states that the quantity of oil products marketed by Eni was larger than the quantity subjected to the excise tax. The first proceeding, opened by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Frosinone against a third company (Turrizziani Petroli) purchaser of Eni’s fuel, is still pending in the phase of the preliminary investigation. This investigation was subsequently extended to Eni. The Company has cooperated fully with the proceeding and provided all data and information concerning the performance of the excise tax obligations for the quantities of fuel coming from the storage sites of Gaeta, Naples and Livorno. Eni ensured the best possible collaboration, handing in all the required documentation with promptness. Such proceeding referred to quantities of oil products sold by Eni, allegedly larger
than the quantity subjected to the excise tax. After the ending of the investigation, the Fiscal Police from Frosinone, along with the local Customs Agency, in November 2013 issued a claim related to the evasion of the payment of excise taxes in the 2007-2012 periods for euro 1.55 million. In May 2014, the Customs Agency of Rome issued a payment notice relating to the above mentioned claim which was filed by the Fiscal Police and Customs Agency of Frosinone. The Company immediately appealed to the Tributary Commission. The second proceeding, opened by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Rome, regarded alleged evasion of excise tax payment on the surplus of the unloading products, as quantity of such products was larger than the quantity reported in the supporting fiscal
documents. This proceeding represents a development of the first proceeding mentioned above, and substantially concerns similar facts, with however some differences with regard to both the nature of the alleged crimes and the responsibility subjected to verification. In fact, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Rome has alleged the existence of a criminal conspiracy aimed at the habitual subtraction of oil products at all of the 22 storage sites which are operated by Eni over the national territory. Eni is cooperating with prosecutor in order to defend the correctness of its operation. Moreover, at the Company’s request, the national association of refiners asked the Italian Customs Agency to provide its advice on the correctness of the operating models adopted by Eni. On September 30, 2014, a
search was conducted at the office of the former chief operating officer of Eni’s Refining & Marketing Division as ordered by the Rome’s Public Prosecutor. The motivations of the search are the same as the above mentioned proceeding as the ongoing investigations also relates to a period of time when he was in charge of that Eni’s Division. On March 5, 2015, the Prosecutor of Rome ordered a search at all the storage sites of Eni’s network in Italy as part of the same proceeding. The search was intended to verify the existence of fraudulent practices aimed at tampering with measuring systems functional to the tax compliance of excise duties in relation to fuel handling at the storage sites.
5. Tax Proceedings Italy
(i) Eni SpA - Dispute for the omitted payment of a municipal tax related to oil platforms located in
territorial waters in the Adriatic Sea.
With a formal assessment presented in December 1999, the Municipality of Pineto (Teramo) claimed Eni SpA omitted payment of a municipal tax on real estate for the period from 1993 to 1998 on four oil platforms located in the Adriatic Sea which constitute municipal waters. Eni was requested to pay a total of approximately euro 17 million including interest and a fine. Eni filed a counterclaim stating that the sea where the platforms are located is not part of the municipal territory and the tax application as requested by the Municipality lacked objective fundamentals. The claim has been accepted in the first two degrees of judgment at the Provincial and Regional Tax Commissions. However, the Supreme Degree Court overturned both judgments, declaring that a Municipality can consider requesting a tax on real estate in the sea facing its territory and with the decision of February 2005 sent the proceeding to another section of the Regional Tax Commission in order to rule on the matters of the proceeding. This commission requested an independent consultant to assess the tax and
technical aspects of the matter. The independent consultant confirmed that Eni’s offshore installations lack any ground to be subject to the municipal tax that was claimed by the local Municipality. Those findings were accepted by the Regional Tax Commission with a ruling made on January 19, 2009. On January 25, 2011, the Municipality notified Eni of an appeal to the Supreme Degree Court for the cancellation of the above mentioned ruling. Also on December 28, 2005, the Municipality of Pineto presented similar claims relating to the same Eni platforms for the years 1999 to 2004. The total amount requested was euro 25 million including interest and penalties. Eni filed a counterclaim which was accepted by the First Degree Judge with a decision of December 4, 2007. Also a second degree court ruled in favor of Eni’s recourses with a sentence filed on June 2012. Terms are pending to file a
counterclaim before a third degree court. Similar formal assessments related to Eni oil and gas offshore platforms were presented by the Municipalities of Pedaso, Cupra Marittima and also from 2009 the Gela Municipality.
(ii) Refund of tax surcharge as provided for by Article 3 of the Law No. 7 enacted on February 6, 2009.
With the aim of financing infrastructure projects, as provided for by the Treaty of Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation between Italy and Libya signed in 2008, the Law No. 7/2009 introduced a tax surcharge of 4% applicable to the pre-tax profit should the effective tax role is lower than 19%. This tax is payable for the years 2009-2028. In 2009, Eni requested the recognition of the right for tax refund to the relevant courts by objecting to, in particular, an effect of double taxation on the dividends distributed by subsidiaries located in the European Union in contrast to the so-called parent-subsidiary directive. In December 2013, the Second Degree Court recognized the right to Eni to be refunded. The Italian Tax Authority did not appeal against this sentence which, consequently,
became final in June 2014. The sentence concerned the right to reimbursement of the first tax installment relating to 2009 for an amount of euro 75 million, approximately. Eni filed an instance to the Italian Revenue Agency requesting the confirmation that for the determination of the tax surcharge, the taxable amount is to be decreased by an amount equal to 95% of the dividends distributed by subsidiaries located in EU. On September 26, 2014, the Italian Revenue Agency confirmed the exclusion of the above mentioned amount of dividends from the taxable base relating to the tax surcharge for the tax declaration yet submitted. Given the positive outcome of the Ruling request, Eni redetermined the tax due for the year 2012 by submitting a supplementary tax statement and the tax surcharge due for the year 2013 according to the new method of calculation. The correctness of the claims already submitted was confirmed for the second tax installment for the year 2009 and for the years 2010 and 2011. The effect through profit and loss was a tax gain of euro 824 million (and interests for approximately euro 40 million) which also includes higher taxes paid in previous years for which the recoverability was assessed in accordance with the international accounting standard IAS 12. In December 2014, the Italian Tax Authority paid the amount requested
by Eni for the year 2009.
6. Tax Proceedings Outside Italy
(i) Eni Angola Production BV.
The tax Authorities of Angola filed a notice of tax assessment in which it claimed the improper deductibility of amortization charges recognized on assets in progress related to the payment
of the Petroleum Income Tax that was made by Eni Angola Production BV as partner of the Cabinda concession. The company paid the higher taxes under contestation for the years 2002-2006, requiring the recognition of its position for subsequent years and, accordingly, filed an appeal against this decision. The judgment is still pending before the Supreme Court. Eni accrued a provision with respect to this proceeding.
(ii) Eni’s subsidiary in Indonesia.
A tax proceeding is pending against Eni’s subsidiary Lasmo Sanga Sanga Ltd as the Tax Administration of Indonesia has questioned the application of a tax rate of 10% on the profit earned by the local branch. Eni’s subsidiary, which is resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes, believes that the 10% tax rate is warranted by the current treaty for the avoidance of double taxation. On the contrary, the Tax Administration of Indonesia has claimed the application of the local tax rate of 20%. The greater taxes due in F-94 accordance to the latter rate have been disbursed amounting to $148 million including interest expense. Eni’s subsidiary has filed an appeal to the relevant tax authorities and accrued a provision with respect of this proceeding.
6. Settled legal proceedings
(i) Inquiries in relation to alleged anti competitive agreements in the area of elastomers.
On November 29, 2006, the European Commission claimed alleged anti competitive agreements in the field of BR and ESBR elastomers and fined Eni and its subsidiary Versalis SpA (former Polimeri Europa SpA) for an amount of euro 272.25 million. Eni and its subsidiary filed claims against this decision before the European Court of First Instance which reduced the above mentioned fine to the amount of euro 181.5 million. This amount was accrued in Eni’s Consolidated Financial Statements in a previous reporting period and subsequently paid to the European Commission. The proceeding has been terminated. With regard to the alleged anti competitive practices in the sector of CR elastomers, in December 2012, the First Instance Court of the European Union reduced to euro 106 million the fine imposed to Eni and its subsidiary Polimeri Europa from the original amount of euro 132.16 million sanctioned on December 5, 2007. A recent sentence of the European Justice Court reaffirmed the reduced amount of the fine thus terminating this proceeding. The amount was accrued in Eni’s Consolidated Financial Statements in a previous reporting period.
(ii) Eni SpA - Investigation of the Italian Authority for Electricity Gas and Water (AEEGSI) about the invoicing to retail clients of gas and electricity.
With the resolution 477/2013/S/Com of October 31, 2013, the Italian AEEGSI resolved to commence a preliminary investigation to ascertain whether Eni violated certain administrative provisions that regulate the periodical invoicing in the retail selling of gas and electricity. The investigation also includes alleged delays in the invoice of certain documentation which is required in case of change of supplier. Eni filed certain proposals of commitments with the AEEGSI. In case the AEEGSI accepts those commitments, the AEEGSI would close the investigation without ascertaining any wrongdoing on part of Eni and without imposing any fine on the Company. The AEEGSI requested a market test and Eni modified its commitments in response to the AEEGSI review and suggestions from market participants. In 2014, the AEEGSI accepted Eni’s commitments and closed the investigation without formulating any charge against Eni.
