•   Contact

Annual Statements

Home Annual Statements Financial Statements 2013 Notes to the consolidated financial statements Notes to the consolidated balance sheet Other provisions

33. Other provisions

(in thousands of euros)



Carrying amount as at 1 January



Movements in the year

Withdrawals during the year

- 2,003

- 4,418

Total movements in the year

- 2,852

- 4,418

Carrying amount as at 31 December



The remaining provision for the 2009 restructuring was 0.6 million euros at 31 December 2013. The movements during 2013 related to this provision.

Schiphol Group faces liabilities in connection with certain other claims and disputes. The overall provision of 10.0 million euros recognised for these claims and disputes was unchanged in 2013, as in 2012. The most significant claims concern 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, Chipshol’s 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. The prohibition was in effect until 2007. In June 2003, the beneficial owner of the site (Chipshol) filed a claim for compensation.

In its final decision of 30 January 2008, the Court in Haarlem, by virtue of Section 50 of the Aviation Act, set the compensation that Schiphol Group should pay to Chipshol at 16.0 million euros (to be increased by statutory interest). To comply with an interim judgement, Schiphol Group paid Chipshol a sum of 19.0 million euros (16.0 million euros plus interest) by way of an advance payment on the final compensation. To cover the risk of having to refund this amount, Chipshol had to issue a bank guarantee of 21.5 million euros in favour of Schiphol Group. On 19 February 2010, the Supreme Court pronounced judgment on the appeals by both parties, ruling that the final decision of the Court in Haarlem of 30 January 2008 could not be upheld. The correct amount of the compensation would be determined by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. 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 judicial issues and answered a number of questions.

The appeals of the parties in Schiphol’s counterclaim against Chipshol (Section 55 of the Aviation Act), judged in parallel with Section 50 of the Aviation Act, were decided by the Supreme Court on 22 February 2013. The Supreme Court ruled in line with its earlier judgement. In brief, the highest court in the land ruled that the dispute on the amount of compensation should be decided in a single case by the Court in Amsterdam. In addition, the complaint that Chipshol submitted to the ACM against Schiphol in 2012 claiming abuse of a dominant market position in the property sector was, after extensive investigation, rejected by the authority. Chipshol’s appeal against this rejection in the Court in Rotterdam was also unsuccessful, being dismissed as wholly unfounded on 21 November 2013. Chipshol has since registered an appeal with Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal.

In the case in the Court in Amsterdam, the court will rule on the following stages of the proceedings. Schiphol Group has received notice from American lawyers acting for Chipshol of possible legal proceedings in the United States of America. Schiphol Group sees no grounds for legal proceedings in the United States of America. 

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.