The main legal, administrative or arbitration proceedings that were in progress on or had ended by 31 December 2021 were as follows:
- In relation to the compensation claim commenced by SNCF in March 2011 following the decision handed down on 21 March 2006 by the Conseil de la Concurrence(*) (the French competition authority), which penalised several companies for collusion in relation to civil engineering works at the Magenta and Saint-Lazare Condorcet stations in Paris (Eole project), the VINCI Group companies reached a settlement with SNCF in March 2016 for the purpose of ending SNCF’s claim against them. On 8 March 2016, the Paris Administrative Court noted the reciprocal discontinuance of proceedings and waiver of rights of action between SNCF Mobilités and all VINCI Group companies involved in these proceedings. The dispute is now definitively at an end following a settlement between SNCF and the other companies concerned.
- In a judgment handed down on 17 December 2013, the Paris Regional Court declared time-barred and inadmissible a claim by Région Île-de-France (the regional authority for the Greater Paris area) for compensation for the harm it purportedly suffered because of the anti-competitive practices penalised by the Conseil de la Concurrence(*) on 9 May 2007 in relation to the programme to refurbish schools in the Greater Paris area between 1989 and 1996. After that judgment, on 16 November 2015, the tribunal des conflits (jurisdiction court) declared the ordinary courts not competent to decide the dispute between the regional authority and various construction companies. More than two years after the jurisdiction court’s decision, the regional authority made 88 applications to the Paris Administrative Court relating to an equal number of school refurbishment contracts, claiming €293 million of damages from 14 companies – including several Group companies – and 11 individuals. In late July 2019, the Paris Administrative Court dismissed Région Île-de-France’s claims. The regional authority is appealing against those decisions. On 19 February 2021, in its judgments in two of the 88 sets of proceedings, the Paris Administrative Appeal Court took the view that Région Île-de-France’s action would not be time-barred in the end, that the regional authority would therefore have grounds to ask the court to find the defendants jointly and severally liable, but that its wrongdoing reduced the defendants’ liability by a third, and ordered an expert opinion to determine any harm suffered by Région Île-de-France. This expert opinion has not yet been issued. The defendants have lodged an appeal at last instance against these two judgments before the Conseil d’Etat, and the other 86 sets of proceedings remain adjourned. The Group takes the view that these proceedings, whose origin dates back more than 30 years and which concerns a claim that has already been found to be time-barred in 2013 and then again in 2019, represent a contingent liability whose impact it is unable to measure.
- In August 2019, after the French government notified its intention to terminate early the concession contract relating to the Notre-Dame-des-Landes, Nantes Atlantique and Saint-Nazaire Montoir airports, Aéroports du Grand Ouest (AGO) twice sought to commence the conciliation procedure provided for in Article 94 of the concession contract. The government refused to comply and, through an order dated 24 October 2019, declared that the concession contract had been terminated for public interest reasons. On 5 December 2019, to safeguard its right to compensation, AGO sent to the government an initial compensation request and, on 6 December 2019, it filed an application to the Nantes Administrative Court to challenge the termination order. In its application, AGO reiterated that it was prepared to commence, as an alternative, a mediation procedure under Article L.213-7 of the French Code of Administrative Justice, to try to reach a balanced agreement that would resolve the dispute. On 3 June 2021, AGO received the government’s defence, sent by the Nantes Administrative Court. On 30 June 2021, the President of the Nantes Administrative Court proposed a mediation procedure to the parties, pursuant to Article L.213-7 of the French Code of Administrative Justice. AGO accepted this proposed mediation, but the latter was not able to take place due to the government’s refusal to implement the procedure. The dispute is therefore still ongoing before the Nantes Administrative Court.
- The Czech Republic’s roads and motorways department (RSD) has made several claims against Eurovia CS, a Eurovia subsidiary based in the Czech Republic, as well as other non-Group companies. These claims concern works carried out between 2003 and 2007 in building the D47 motorway. Since late 2012, the RSD has brought several arbitration and legal proceedings mainly to seek damages for what the RSD alleges was defective work affecting the roads and engineering structures that were built as well as additional compensation for various other losses. Repairs have been carried out since the start of 2014, costing substantially less than the amount sought by the RSD. A partial arbitration decision was handed down in June 2021. The corresponding works are expected to be completed by the end of 2022 for amounts that are also considerably lower than those sought by the RSD. An arbitration decision is pending for two other motorway sections and civil proceedings have been brought in relation to a fourth section. Regarding the claims relating mainly to defective work and covered by the proceedings already under way, the RSD is claiming damages of 3.1 billion Czech koruna, of which Eurovia CS’s share would be around 75%. In view of its current status and its latest developments, the Group considers that this dispute will not have a material effect on its financial situation.
- Soletanche Bachy France had submitted a request for arbitration to the International Chamber of Commerce after ACT (Aqaba Container Terminal) terminated a contract for the construction of an extension to a container terminal in the port of Aqaba in Jordan. The company was disputing the grounds for terminating the contract, and was claiming $10 million in damages. ACT contended that it had valid grounds for terminating the contract and that it had incurred additional costs in completing the works, and was counter-claiming $44 million in damages. The arbitration tribunal, in an arbitration award dated 30 August 2017 amended by two awards dated 28 September 2017 and 1 May 2018, dismissed the company’s claim and ordered it to pay ACT $38.3 million plus $9.1 million of legal expenses. The company has commenced proceedings to oppose the execution of that decision and against the joint contractors. On 15 December 2020, the Paris Appeal Court confirmed the decision by the Paris Regional Court declaring the arbitration award of 30 August 2017 enforceable. Soletanche Bachy France has lodged an appeal at last instance against this judgment before the Cour de Cassation. Given the provisions it has set aside, the Group considers, in view of the current situation, that this dispute will not have any material effect on its financial situation.
- On 6 November 2019, the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima (Peru) commenced arbitration proceedings against Lima Expresa (hereinafter “LimaEx”), the concession holder of the Línea Amarilla motorway, before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris. The Metropolitan Municipality of Lima’s main claim, as concession grantor, relates to the termination of the 12 November 2009 concession contract and to the series of amendments to that contract. On 20 December 2016, the Group acquired 100% of LimaEx through its subsidiary VINCI Highways SAS. LimaEx is contesting the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima’s claims based on allegations of bribery prior to the Group’s acquisition of LimaEx, and has filed a counterclaim. In addition, as part of three sets of criminal proceedings currently taking place, one against a former official of the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima and two against an ex-mayor of Lima, the public prosecutors have requested that LimaEx’s civil liability be invoked. LimaEx is disputing these requests in each set of proceedings. The Group takes the view that these proceedings represent a contingent liability whose impact it is unable to measure.
- On 12 May 2015, VINCI Construction Grands Projets formed a non-incorporated joint venture with Italian company Astaldi. The entity was created for the purpose of carrying out construction works on the new Santiago airport in Chile under an engineering, procurement and construction contract formed on 18 November 2015 with the concession holder Sociedad Concesionaria Nuevo Pudahuel. VINCI Construction Grands Projets and Astaldi have equal interests in the joint venture. A dispute has arisen between VINCI Construction Grands Projets and Astaldi regarding (i) allegations of mismanagement made by Astaldi against VINCI Construction Grands Projets, which VINCI Construction Grands Projets rejects entirely; and (ii) VINCI Construction Grands Projets’ exclusion of Astaldi from the joint venture’s governance because of misconduct by Astaldi, which is disputed by Astaldi. Astaldi commenced arbitration proceedings against VINCI Construction Grands Projets on 14 December 2020 before the International Chamber of Commerce. In a letter dated 28 December 2020, Astaldi stated that the amount it was claiming was around €150 million. VINCI Construction Grands Projets entirely disputes the compensation sought by Astaldi and has made a counterclaim aimed at (i) forcing Astaldi to pay its share of the loss suffered by the consortium at the time of its exclusion and (ii) forcing Astaldi to reimburse its share of the calls for funds made during the works, which total €59.6 million. The arbitral tribunal, the seat of which is in Geneva, has been constituted. In view of the current situation, the Group considers that this dispute will not have a material effect on its financial situation.
There are no other judicial, administrative or arbitration proceedings, including any proceedings known to the Company, pending or with which it is threatened, that are likely to have, or have had in the last 12 months, a material effect on the financial situation or profitability of the Company and/or Group.
(*) Now known as the Autorité de la Concurrence
