Motor Oil has been fined €9.2 million by the Competition Commission for obstructing an ex-officio inspection attempted by a team of the Commission at the Corinth refineries.

Specifically, according to the reasoning of the decision, during the on-site inspection Motor Oil and a natural person (who was fined €50,000) did not actively cooperate, but caused obstacles, delays and difficulties during the inspection by their actions and omissions. Therefore, as stated in the reasoning of the decision, they did not ensure the integrity - availability of the company's business records and the effectiveness of the audit. 

THE RESPONSE

Motor Oil responded by stating that it respects the Commission's institutional role but disagrees with the decision, even claiming that the previous EIA leadership was in error. It rejects the allegations that the audit was obstructed and stresses that everyone cooperated and facilitated the audit. In detail, the statement reads as follows: "The Competition Commission today announced the imposition of a fine against our company, citing obstruction of the ex officio inspection carried out at the offices of Motor Oil Hellas Group of Companies in September 2021. We fully respect the institutional role of the Commission but we strongly disagree with its decision considering that the previous leadership has made a mistake. Both the members of the Board of Directors of the company and its staff have fully cooperated with the Authority and facilitated the audit conducted in full compliance with the obligations they have or were requested to do. This, moreover, is also stated in the Commission's documents. During the audit, Commission staff requested to visit and inspect a private premises of the CEO, which is not included in the premises where Motor Oil and its group companies carry out their activities (it is the premises of a third company that leases space in the same building as MOH). For this exaggeration, we consider that the Competition Commission's decision is based on incorrect and unproven assumptions about alleged incidents that took place during their audit and, consequently, our Company will appeal to the Court of Justice."