Announcement regarding the recent imposition of a fine of 9,200,000 euros imposed by the Competition Commission on Motor Oil, due to obstructing – complicating the Commission’s investigation during the conduct of an on-site inspection in the wider petroleum market – the company issued today.

For the same reason, a fine of 50,000 euros was imposed on a natural person.

The company describes the decision of the Competition Commission as “erroneous and unsupported” while announcing that it “will appeal to the competent courts for the annulment of the decision and will use all legal means to defend its interests”.

The announcement in detail

“MOTOR OIL (GREECE) CORINTH REFINERY S.A. (the Company) informs that on 30.09.2024 it was served with a decision of the Competition Commission imposing a fine of Euro 9.2 million for supposed -according to the Commission’s allegations- obstruction of ex officio control held at the premises of the Company’s Head Offices in September 2021.

It was also imposed by the same decision fine in the amount of Euro 50,000 to the Managing Director of the Company, Mr. IOanni V. Vardinogiannis.

With reference to the above, the Company clarifies the following:

During the control the executive potential of the Company cooperated with the auditors in compliance with his legal obligations, fully responding to the auditors’ requests, facilitating the audit, something that is highlighted in the rationale of the Commission’s decision. From the control of the Commission no issues of violation of competition law arose on behalf of the Company. All records and data requested by the Commission’s auditors were delivered or provided.

The Committee’s allegation regarding the denial of auditors’ access to the office of the Company’s CEO, Mr. Ioannis V. Vardinogianni, is unfounded. All evidence that the office space was private and not owned or leased by a company within our Company’s group was provided to the Commission in a timely manner. After all, this space is located within the same building but at a different point in relation to our company’s offices.

The Commission, however, demonstrated a special persistence to enter and investigate private space offices in a way that violates any concept of legality. Apparently its purpose was to create impressions and not to investigate the commission of any legal violations. Therefore, auditors were not allowed to enter his private space which is in no way included in the office premises leased by the Company.

The Company considers the decision of the Competition Commission to impose a fine to be completely incorrect and unsupported.

In view of the above, the Company will appeal to the competent courts for the annulment of the above decision of the Competition Commission and will use all legal means to defend its interests.”