169 / 214
169
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND CONSOLIDATED MANAGEMENT REPORT 2015
PROCEEDINGS RELATEDTO MEDIASET ESPAÑA’S SUPPOSED FAILURE TO
COMPLYWITHTHE TELECINCO-CUATRO MERGER COMMITMENTS
On September 17, 2015, the Consejo de la Comisión Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia (CNMC) handed down
a ruling on Dossier SNC/0036/15 Mediaset (the “resolution”), in which it found that Mediaset España Comunicación,
S.A. (“Mediaset España”) failed to comply with one of the commitments of the Telecinco/Cuatro merger, and therefore
set a fine of 3,000 thousand euros.
Specifically, based on the Resolution, Mediaset España supposedly did not comply in 2013 with the terms of the
commitment (ii), as it allegedly linked the sale of Telecinco and Cuatro advertising space in a formal or de facto manner.
However, Mediaset España did not fail to comply with the above commitment, as there is not proof beyond a reasonable
doubt that the conduct in question are tantamount to infractions; Mediaset sales figures for the period demonstrated
that none of the alleged infractions took place. Reports prepared by external advisors conclude that Publiespaña did
not fail to meet its commitments nor has it violated anti-trust laws.
Therefore, Mediaset España appealed the resolution in time and substance before the National Court of Justice, which
subsequently suspended of the fine.
As in the previous dossier, the accompanying consolidated statement of financial position does not include a provision
for this contingency, as the directors and legal advisors do not consider it likely that this risk will arise.
MADRID COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE 6: REGULAR PROCESS NUMBER 1181/10
The Company filed a lawsuit of ordinary proceedings on November 19, 2010 against a contents supplier requesting that
a contract granting a licensing format, as well as other related contracts, be deemed null and void.The suit requested that
the defendant be ordered to return amounts paid within the scope of the agreements, as well as be fined for damages
and losses.
The defendant requested that the claim be dismissed and also filed a counterclaim requesting that the Company be
ordered to pay the contract transaction costs as well as an indemnity for damages and losses (estimated at 15 million
euros).
On February 3, 2014, the Court handed down a sentence overturning the order while partially upholding the
counterclaim, declaring that the Company did not comply with the agreements reached with the supplier, and that it
was in violation of certain rights; the Company was ordered to pay the amounts claimed in the appeal.
The Company filed an appeal against the sentence, arguing the following:
• From a factual point of view, the Court did not consider any of the numerous items of proof submitted indica-
ting that the defendant is not solely entitled to legal protection, which is the most substantive aspect of the case.
• Legally speaking, it is contradictory as it grants protection to elements lacking originality to the detriment of
those which would make the program easily distinguishable from others similar in nature.
• Finally, the fine should have been limited to the industrial margin or profit which the supplier would have earned
had the terms in the contracts been met, rather than the total amount of the estimated invoicing, as the supplier
did not provide any services at all.
Based on the above, we consider it probable that the Provincial Court will overturn the sentence. In 2014, the Company
decided to record a provision for part of the fine imposed under the first sentence, in line with its general risk
management policy.