It was not our fault that there was no subject debate with UOKIK, aiming at a presentation of the arguments for the transaction at any level of the procedure.

It should be underlined that the UOKIK’s decision is contradictory to the government's strategy of the Polish power market development and that the takeover transaction of ENERGA shares by PGE is a very important part of this strategy.

The publicly presented justification of the decision contains some theses that are not in conformity with the actual situation. 

Even now, the considerable majority of the power generated by PGE is sold through the power exchange. Thus, the power price is a result of a market play, rather than somebody's decision. Therefore, the argument that the entity established as a result of the takeover of ENERGA by PGE would "impose sales conditions and determine power prices” is untrue.

UOKIK has not taken into account the changes occurring on the European power market, presented, among others, during the recent visit to Poland of Mr Günther Öettinger, European Commissioner for Energy. Both the existing and planned EU regulations as well as the ongoing consolidation processes indicate that we can witness a single integrated European market being created. Neglecting the consideration of this process is a serious mistake made by the Competition and Consumer Protection Office.

Besides, some strong entities with considerable shares at their domestic markets, much higher than the expected share of the merged ENERGA and PGE in the Polish market, will compete on the integrating European market.

The argument concerning the lack of cross border connections is not true, either. In spite of the fact that such connections are not used now and that they require to be partly-modernised, they still allow for export/import of approx. 30% of the power needed for the Polish market. It is difficult to consider such value as insignificant for the market.

The preliminary analysis of over seventy-page-long justification of the decision shows surprising facts. For example, taking a crucial decision for the Polish economy, the Competition and Consumer Protection Office finds more important a negative opinion on the transaction and its consequences of one of the investors, who has already declared to withdraw from the Polish market, than the positive opinions of 23 generators (out of 36 questioned entities) that cannot see a threat resulting from the planned concentration.

Therefore, PGE Management Board prepares to appeal the decision to the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection. In our opinion, considering all the known and available information will allow to revoke the decision.