All the observations of the Court of Auditors incorporated into the final text of the Agreement signed by the PPA and the PCT.
Regarding announcements and publications, concerning the signed Concession Agreement between PPA SA and PCT SA for the construction of the Western Pier III etc. in relation with the Court's reasoning and operating part are known for the accuracy of the events the following:
1. The Court of Auditors with the 3377/2014 decision of the VI Department judged that "not prevented the signing of the second amendment draft to the contract between the PPA SA and PCT SA following the reasoning " without quotes in the operating part any conditions.
2. In the reasoning of the Court of Auditors (Section VI) stated that, "The signing of this amending contract with the PCT SA, without first new award procedure, shown according to the department’s opinion legal". So the process of friendly settlement is seen as legitimate option.
3. In the reasoning of the Court of Auditors (Section VII) the Department, as the Division, considered it necessary to extend the payment of a fixed consideration I and in the draft contract for the Western Pier III.
In the contract signed added as item 7a precisely this term.
4. In the reasoning of the Court of Auditors (Section VII) the Department, considered it necessary to extend the payment of a fixed consideration II and in the draft contract.
In the contract signed added as item 7b precisely this term.
5. For the minimum guaranteed fee the reasoning of the Court of Auditors (Section VI) considered that justified the parallel in the construction stage and until the entry into productive operation of Pier III, suspension of payment.
In the contract signed added as item 4.3.2 this term.
6. On the same issue, after 2022, linked to the GDP the new wording is based on the replacement with financial terms of the minimum guaranteed by the guaranteed capacity and the minimum guaranteed capacity, which integrated with new sizes to the Contract. In the reasoning the Court of Auditors considers that such changes "relate to feasibility issues" and not legality and are beyond the audit jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors. ''That is, can the PPA do, legally, by selecting at its discretion as a mean the process of amicable settlement ... instead of lengthy and uncertain as to the outcome litigation’’.
In the contracts signed revised as 4.3.2 the text of Table 3 after 2022, based on the financial estimates for the minimum guaranteed capacity.
From the above is proved analytically and exactly that in the final Agreement signed included diligently all the observations of the Court, although in the text of the operative part, none of them specifically mentioned. These additions were made for reasons of maximum legal certainty, despite differing interpretations on either side.