•   Contact

Annual Statements

Financial reporting

Price winner 2012 in the category non-listed

Home Annual Statements Financial Statements 2012 Notes to the consolidated financial statements Notes to the consolidated balance sheet Other provisions

35. Other provisions

(in thousands of euros)



Carrying amount as at 1 January



Movements in the year

Withdrawals during the year

- 4,418

- 11,646

Total movements in the year

- 4,418

- 11,646

Carrying amount as at 31 December



The remaining provision for the 2009 restructuring was EUR 3.5 million at 31 December 2012 (31 December 2011: EUR 7.8 million). The provision includes the temporary continued payment of salaries to redundant staff and outplacement costs, benefits for members of the FPU scheme until retirement, non-recurring transfer payments to staff members in subcontracting projects, and other arrangements with individual employees.

Schiphol Group faces liabilities in connection with several claims and disputes. The overall provision of EUR 10.0 million recognised for these claims and disputes was unchanged in 2012, as in 2011. The most significant of these claims and disputes concerns the consequences of the ban on the development of the Groenenberg site in place from 19 February 2003 to 28 June 2007.

Based on the insights available in 2003, development of the Groenenberg site could have seriously compromised the use of Runway 18L–36R and consequently, in February 2003, the state secretary for Transport, Public Works and Water Management (now Infrastructure and Environment) prohibited development of this site under the provisions of Section 38 of the old Aviation Act. In June 2003, the beneficial owner of the site (Chipshol) filed a claim against Schiphol Group under Section 50 of the new Aviation Act for losses resulting from the imposition of this prohibition. Based on enhanced insight and new data, the minister decided that it was no longer necessary to maintain the ban for the entire site and on 28 June 2007, in response to a request from Schiphol Group, lifted the development ban. The Act provides for a scheme (known as separate repayment proceedings under Section 55) to deal with value increases when bans are lifted, similar to the compensation provided for when a development ban is imposed. Schiphol Group instituted such proceedings against Chipshol before the Court in Haarlem.

In 2007, Schiphol Group paid an advance of EUR 19.0 million (EUR 16.0 million plus interest) to Chipshol in compliance with an interlocutory decision. Chipshol was instructed by the Court to provide a bank guarantee for EUR 21.5 million to Schiphol Group to cover the restitution risk with respect to that amount.

In its final decision of 30 January 2008, the Court, by virtue of Section 50 of the Aviation Act, set the compensation which Schiphol Group should pay to Chipshol at EUR 16.0 million (to be increased by statutory interest). Chipshol’s claim for tax damages was rejected. Both parties lodged appeals with the Supreme Court against the interlocutory rulings and the final judgement. The airport has instituted proceedings under Section 55 of the Act to establish the increase in the value of the land on the Groenenberg site since the development ban was lifted, in order to determine the amount to be paid by Chipshol or deducted from the advance payable by Schiphol Group. The Court ruled that the security for restitution risk should remain in place.

On 19 February 2010, the Supreme Court pronounced judgment in the proceedings under Section 50 of the Aviation Act, ruling that the final decision of the Court in Haarlem of 30 January 2008 could not be upheld. It ruled that Chipshol was entitled to compensation as a result of the imposition of the development ban but that Schiphol Group is likewise entitled to compensation for the value increase as a consequence of the ban having been lifted. The amount of this compensation will be determined by the Court in Amsterdam, which will consider aspects such as Chipshol’s own fault, double counting of settlements which Chipshol effected with the municipality of Haarlemmermeer and the province of North-Holland on the one hand and the rejected component of tax damage on the other.

The Court in Haarlem has since pronounced final judgment in the case on compensation under Section 55 of the Aviation Act in connection with lifting the ban on development of the Groenenberg site. The judgment is mainly procedural in nature and has identified the judicial authority (the Amsterdam Court of Appeal) that is ultimately to decide the level of any compensation to be paid in the case. The parties are appealing against the judgment to the Dutch Supreme Court.

On 27 December 2011, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal issued an interlocutory ruling in which it more precisely described the instruction of the Supreme Court to further examine the most important outstanding issues and in which it answered a number of questions. One of the most important decisions of the Court of Appeal is that it is bound by all previous judgements. This decision means the court rejected all attempts by Chipshol to again discredit the experts (or judges) of the Court in Haarlem or to resume from the beginning the case about the level of the compensation (under Section 50) or to introduce new elements to the proceedings. The Court of Appeal is following the ‘blueprint’ that the Supreme Court provided and will probably appoint experts. The Court of Appeal’s next ruling has been deferred until the Section 55 appeal has been decided by the Supreme Court.

In view of this, the Management Board is of the opinion that no adjustment is required to the estimate it made of Schiphol Group’s net liabilities towards Chipshol. The Board does not expect that the remaining amount of the compensation which Schiphol Group will eventually have to pay to Chipshol with regard to the Groenenberg site or other claims will exceed the provision formed for this.