| | KOMISJA NADZORU FINANSOWEGO | | | | | | | Raport bieżący nr | 79 | / | 2016 | | | | | | Data sporządzenia: | 2016-05-11 | | | | | | | | | | | Skrócona nazwa emitenta | | | | | | | | | | E-STAR ALTERNATIV ENERGIASZOLGALTATO NYRT. | | | | Temat | | | | | | | | | | | | | Announcement | | | | Podstawa prawna | | | | | | | | | | Treść raportu: | | | | | | | | | | | | ENEFI Energy Efficiency Plc. _"Company"_ hereby informs its Honourable Investors that according to
the information from the Romanian operations, the second instance court decision _the lawsuit was
closed in favour of the Company at first instance_ has been made in the lawsuit related to the
attachment exercised by the Romanian Financial Authority on the land of the Company in Zalău with
the following explanation:
The Court concluded in the explanation that the Financial Authority initiated collection legally on the
basis of only the amount of RON 265,977 from its total claim of RON 8,967,172. The Court concluded
about the other claims that the Financial Authority lost its right of collection _considering the failure
of registration in the previous bankruptcy proceedings of the Company_. The Company also disputed
the claim of RON 265,977. The objection was rejected by the Court irrespectively of the fact that the
Court itself did not find the collection lawful apart from the interest.
The claim of RON 265,977 is the interest of the above RON 8,967,172 _RON 8,701,195 + RON 265,977
interest_, which was established by the Financial Authority in spite of the fact that the Court had
declared earlier that it had lost its claim of RON 8,701,195. The Company challenged the decision
determining the interest which lawsuit was closed in favour of the Company at first instance;
however the Court approved the claim of the Financial Authority at second instance.
The Court based its decision on that decision in the present lawsuit.
The Company challenged the previous final in review proceedings because it is unintelligible for the
Company how interest can be determined for a capital claim which the Company is not obliged to
pay therefore it obviously cannot fall into delay. The request for review was rejected, which decision
is being appealed. The Company reminds stakeholders that the capital claims were not due to its
previous creditors regularly registered in the bankruptcy proceedings, since they waived those in the
settlement with the creditors.
The Company hereby highlights that the Financial Authority initiated collection for the total amount
of the claim being aware on the basis of the previous Court decision that it had lost its right to
enforce such collection. In addition to the above, the Authority did not pay the Company the amount
of VAT legally reclaimed by the Company because it was compensated its claim.
The Company will exercise revision against the present second instance decision. | | |
