Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 42kWORD 20k
28 October 2019
Question for written answer P-003479-19
to the Commission
Rule 138
Dita Charanzová (Renew)

 Subject:  Investigation of the sale of OKD shares in 2004

I would like to draw your attention to the sale of the OKD mining company’s assets to private individuals in 2004. Specifically, this involves the 46% of shares that were held by the state.

There is a suspicion that the sale of the shares significantly underestimated the share price and led to shares being sold at billions of Czech crowns below their true value.

This transaction has had a very negative impact on the tens of thousands of tenants of flats that were part of the sold-off assets. They have been living in uncertainty for 15 years, not knowing whether all the commitments that were made to them when they became tenants prior to 2004 will be respected.

Their tenants’ association Bytyokd.cz has repeatedly asked the Commission (in 2011, 2013 and 2016) to investigate the transaction in its entirety.

Meanwhile, legal proceedings are also taking place in the Czech Republic. In the spring of this year (11 April 2019), the Municipal Court in Prague issued a final judgment.

Among other things, the submitted expert opinions prove that, in 2004, the sale price of the company was actually underestimated and supported by only one expert opinion, which does not meet any basic criteria of expert opinions.

Given that the Commission has made a number of subsequent statements on this case, on which a Czech court has now ruled, how does the Commission intend to deal with the complaint submitted in 2013?

What is the Commission’s position on this case?

Original language of question: CS 
Last updated: 31 October 2019Legal notice