Siemens 2011 Annual Report Download - page 322

6 A. To our shareholders 51 C. Combined management’s discussion and analysis 23 B. Corporate Governance

former VA Tech companies were declared jointly liable with
Schneider Electric for a separate fine of €. million. In March
, the European Court of First Instance dismissed the case
regarding the fine imposed on Siemens AG and re-calculated
the fines for the former VA Tech companies. Former VA Tech
companies were declared jointly liable with Schneider Electric
for a fine of €. million. Siemens AG and former VA Tech
companies have appealed the decision.
In addition to these proceedings, authorities in Brazil, the
Czech Republic and Slovakia are conducting investigations in-
to comparable possible antitrust violations. In October ,
the High Court of New Zealand dismissed corresponding
charges against Siemens.
In January , the European Commission launched, as pre-
viously reported, an investigation related to previously report-
ed investigations into potential antitrust violations involving
producers of flexible current transmission systems in New
Zealand and the U.S. including, among others, Siemens AG. In
April , authorities in South Korea and Mexico informed
the Company that similar proceedings had been initiated. All
official investigations in connection with flexible power trans-
mission systems have been closed. Siemens had been cooper-
ating with all authorities.
As previously reported, in October , upon the Company ’s
appeal, a Hungarian competition court reduced administra-
tive fines imposed on Siemens AG for alleged antitrust viola-
tions in the market of high-voltage gas-insulated switchgear
from €. million to €. million and from €. million
to €. million regarding VA Technologie AG. The Company
and the Competition Authority both appealed the decision. In
November , the Court of Appeal confirmed the reduction
of the fines. In December , the Competition Authority,
based on alleged breaches of law, filed an extraordinary ap-
peal with the Supreme Court. In December , Siemens AG
was notified that the Supreme Court had remanded the case
to the Court of Appeal, with instructions to take a new deci-
sion on the amount of the fines. The extraordinary appeal
from the Competition Authority was rejected with legally
binding effect by the Court of Appeal in January . In April
, the Competition Authority filed another extraordinary
appeal with the Supreme Court. In April , the Supreme
Court sustained the extraordinary appeal of the Competition
Authority and remanded the case for a new decision to anoth-
er chamber of the Court of Appeal. In September , the
Court of Appeal confirmed the original administrative fines.
This decision is not appealable.
In September , the Israeli Antitrust Authority requested
Siemens to present its legal position regarding an alleged anti -
competitive arrangement between April  and April 
in the field of gas-insulated switchgear. Siemens is cooperat-
ing with the authority.
In connection with the January ,  decision of the Euro-
pean Commission regarding alleged antitrust violations in the
high-voltage gas-insulated switchgear market, claims are be-
ing made against Siemens. Among others, a claim was filed
by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc. (National Grid)
with the High Court of England and Wales in November .
Twenty-one companies have been named as defendants, in-
cluding Siemens AG and various of its subsidiaries. National
Grid asserts claims in the aggregate amount of approximately
£ million for damages and compound interest. Siemens
believes National Grid’s claim to be without merit. As dis-
cussed, the European Commission’s decision has been ap-
pealed to the European Court of First Instance. On June ,
, the High Court granted a stay of the proceedings pend-
ing before it until three months after the later of the outcome
of the appeal to the European Court of First Instance or any
subsequent appeals to the European Court of Justice. In June
, the Siemens defendants filed their answers to the com-
plaint and requested National Grid’s claim to be rejected. Dis-
covery is ongoing.
As previously reported, in November , the Greek Competi-
tion Authority searched the premises of Siemens S.A. in Ath-
ens in response to allegations of anti-competitive practices in
the field of telecommunication and security. Siemens is coop-
erating with the authority.
As previously reported, in December  and in March ,
the Turkish Antitrust Authority searched the premises of sev-
eral diagnostic companies including, among others, Siemens
Healthcare Diagnostik Ticaret Limited Sirketi in Istanbul, in re-
sponse to allegations of anti-competitive agreements. Siemens
is cooperating with the authority.
As previously reported, on February , , the Italian Anti-
trust Authority searched the premises of several healthcare
companies, among others those of Siemens Healthcare Diag-
nostics S.r.l. and Siemens S.p.A. The investigation addresses
allegations of anti-competitive agreements in relation to a
tender of the procurement entity for the public healthcare
sector in the region of Campania for the supply of medical
equipment in . On May , , the Italian Antitrust Au-
thority sent a Statement of Objections to the companies un-