DHL 2014 Annual Report Download - page 212

proceedings. e Cologne Administrative Court and the Münster
Higher Administrative Court both dismissed this application. First
Mail Düsseldorf GmbH discontinued its mail delivery operations
at the end of  and retracted its appeal on  December .
Deutsche Post  continues to pursue its appeal against the
Bundes netzagentur 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 . e Commission determined that
Deutsche Post  was not overcompensated, using state resources,
for the cost of providing universal services between  and .
It also did not nd fault with the guarantees issued by the Ger-
man state for legacy liabilities. By contrast, it did nd that some of
the funding arrangements for civil servants’ pensions represented
illegal state aid. It said that the pension relief granted to Deutsche
Post  by the Bundesnetzagentur during the price approval pro-
cess led to Deutsche Post  receiving a benet in relation to its
services that are not rate-regulated. According to the Commission,
this must be claimed back by the German government, which
must also ensure that the granting of state aid does not in future
confer benets with respect to non-rate-regulated services (illegal
state aid). e European Commission has le the calculation of
the precise amount to be repaid to the Federal Republic. However,
in a press release, the European Commission had referred to an
amount of between  million and  billion.
Deutsche Post  and the federal government are of the opin-
ion that the European Commission’s state aid decision of  Janu-
ary  cannot withstand legal review and have each submitted an
appeal to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
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 this
amount to a trustee on  June  and appealed the recovery order
to the Administrative Court. However, this appeal has been sus-
pended pending a ruling from the European Court of Justice. e
company made additional payments of . million and . mil-
lion to the trustee on  January  and  January , respec-
tively, and . million on  January . All payments made
until the reporting date 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 against the Federal Republic of
Germany with the European Court of Justice to eect a higher
repayment amount. Although Deutsche Post  and the federal
government are of the opinion that the European Commission’s
state aid decision of  January  cannot withstand legal review,
it cannot be ruled out that Deutsche Post  will ultimately be re-
quired to make a (potentially higher) payment, which could have
an adverse eect on earnings; Note .
On  November , the Bundeskartellamt (German fed-
eral cartel oce) initiated proceedings against Deutsche Post 
on suspicion of abusive behaviour with respect to agreements on
mail transport with major customers. Based on information from
Deutsche Post ’s competitors and customer surveys, the author-
ities suspect that the company had violated the provisions of Ger-
man and European antitrust law. Deutsche Post  does not share
this opinion. However, should the authorities nd their suspicions
conrmed, they may require Deutsche Post  to refrain from cer-
tain acts or impose nes.
Since  July , as a result of the revision of the relevant
tax exemption provisions, the  exemption has only applied to
those specic universal services in Germany that are not subject to
individually negotiated agreements or provided on special terms
(discounts etc.). Deutsche Post  does not believe that the legis-
lative amendment fully complies with the applicable provisions of
European Community law. Due to the legal uncertainty resulting
from the new legislation, Deutsche Post  is endeavouring to clar-
ify certain key issues with the tax authorities. Although Deutsche
Post  is implementing the required measures to a large extent,
the diering legal opinions on the part of Deutsche Post  and the
tax authorities will be judicially claried; Note .
On  June ,  Express France received a statement of
objections from the French Competition Authority alleging anti-
competitive conduct in the domestic express business, which had
been divested in June . e company is currently co-operating
with the French authorities regarding the issues raised in the state-
ment of objections.
In view of the ongoing or announced legal proceedings
mentioned above, no details are given on their presentation in the
nan cial statements.
 Share-based payment
Assumptions regarding the price of Deutsche Post ’s shares and
assumptions regarding employee uctuation are taken into account
when measuring the value of share-based payments for executives.
All assumptions are reviewed on a quarterly basis. e sta costs
are recognised pro rata in prot or loss to reect the services ren-
dered as consideration during the vesting period (lock-up period).
Deutsche Post  Group —  Annual Report
206