DHL 2015 Annual Report Download - page 205

Deutsche Post  Group —  Annual Report
Maturity structure of minimum lease payments
 m
2014 2015
Less than  year 1,626 1,725
More than  year to  years 1,223 1,298
More than  years to  years 975 1,019
More than  years to  years 751 764
More than  years to  years 501 534
More than  years 2,079 2,242
Total 7,155 7,582
e present value of discounted minimum lease payments is
, million (previous year: , million), based on a discount
factor of .  (previous year: . ). Overall, rental and lease
payments amounted to , million (previous year: , mil-
lion), of which , million (previous year: , million) re-
lates to non-cancellable leases. , million (previous year:
, million) of future lease obligations from non-cancellable
leases is primarily attributable to Deutsche Post Immobilien GmbH.
e purchase obligation for investments in non-current assets
amounts to  million (previous year:  million).
 Litigation
A large number of the postal services rendered by Deutsche Post 
and its subsidiaries are subject to sector-specic regulation by the
Bundesnetzagentur (German federal network agency) pursuant to
the Postgesetz (German Postal Act). As the regulatory authority, the
Bundesnetzagentur approves or reviews such prices, formulates the
terms of downstream access and has special supervisory powers to
combat market abuse. is general regulatory risk could lead to a
decline in revenue and earnings in the event of negative decisions.
Legal risks arise, amongst other things, from pending admin-
istrative court appeals by an association against the price approvals
granted by the Bundesnetzagentur under the price cap procedure for
,  and  to . e Federal Administrative Court
decided on the appeals by the association against the price approvals
granted by the Bundesnetzagentur under the price cap procedure for
,  and  on  August . e Federal Administrative
Court revoked the price approvals concerned in relation to the
association as a customer of Deutsche Post. However, the Bundes-
netzagentur price approvals concerned remain applicable to the
general public and may no longer be contested.
In its decision dated  June , the Bundesnetzagentur
concluded that   Düsseldorf GmbH, a subsidiary of
Deutsche Post , and Deutsche Post  had contravened the dis-
counting and discrimination prohibitions under the Postgesetz. e
companies were instructed to remedy the breaches that had been
identied. Both companies appealed against the ruling. Further-
more,   Düsseldorf GmbH led an application to sus-
pend the execution of the ruling until a decision was reached in the
principal proceedings. e Cologne Administrative Court and the
Münster Higher Administrative Court both dismissed this applica-
tion.   Düsseldorf GmbH discontinued its mail delivery
operations at the end of  and retracted its appeal on  Decem-
ber . Deutsche Post  continues to pursue its appeal against
the Bundesnetzagentur ruling.
In its ruling of  April , the Bundesnetzagentur deter-
mined that Deutsche Post  had contravened the discrimination
provisions under the Postgesetz by charging dierent fees for the
transport of identical invoices and invoices containing dierent
amounts. Deutsche Post  was requested to discontinue the dis-
crimination determined immediately, but no later than  Decem-
ber . e ruling was implemented on  January . Deutsche
Post does not share the legal opinion of the Bundesnetzagentur and
appealed the ruling.
On  January , the European Commission issued a ruling
on the formal investigation regarding state aid that it had initiated
on  September . In its review, the European Commission
determined that Deutsche Post  was not overcompensated for
providing universal services between  and  using state
resources. It also did not nd fault with the guarantees issued by the
German state for legacy liabilities. By contrast, in its review of fund-
ing for civil servants’ pensions, the European Commission con-
cluded that illegal state aid had, in part, been received. It found that
the pension relief granted to Deutsche Post  by the Bundesnetz-
agentur during the price approval process led to Deutsche Post ’s
receiving a benet, which it must repay to the Federal Republic of
Germany; in addition, it must also be ensured that no benets are
received in the future which could be considered illegal state aid.
e Commission furthermore stated that the precise amount to be
repaid was to be calculated by the Federal Republic of Germany. In
a press release, the European Commission had referred to an
amount of between  million and  billion. Deutsche Post 
is of the opinion that the Commission’s state aid decision of  Janu-
ary  cannot withstand legal review and has led an appeal with
the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. e Federal Republic
of Germany has similarly appealed the decision.
To implement the state aid ruling, the federal government
called upon Deutsche Post  on  May  to make a payment
of  million including interest. Deutsche Post  paid that
amount to a trustee on  June  and appealed the recovery order
to the Administrative Court. e appeal, however, has been sus-
pended pending a ruling from the European Court. Deutsche Post 
made additional payments to the trustee of . million on  Janu-
ary , . million on  January , . million on  Janu-
ary  and . million on  January . ose payments
were reported in the balance sheet under non-current assets; the
earnings position remained unaected.
e European Commission has not expressed its nal accept-
ance of the calculation of the state aid to be repaid. On  Decem-
ber , it initiated proceedings with the European Court of Justice
against the Federal Republic of Germany to eect a higher repay-
ment amount. In its decision on those proceedings of  May ,
the European Court of Justice merely ruled that Germany must
independently dene the individual markets before making the
calculation. It did not rule on the amount of the repayment claim.
195
Consolidated Financial Statements — NOTES — Other disclosures