Integriteitsrapport Holland Integrity Group toegevoegd op 10 december aan de stukken

In our research, we have gathered no indications that Ms Židlická had misused her position as judge in this or other cases in relation to EPH or her son. A case from 2021, found at the Supreme Administrative Court, pertained to a petition filed by EPH’s subsidiary EP ENERGY TRADING, a.s., whereas EPH was just mentioned as a shareholder, not a litigant. Two other cases from 2014 pertained to the same matter mentioning EPH as the third party on the side of the plaintiff. Four matches found at the Supreme Administrative Court, held from 2014 until 2015, regarded the plaintiff ’s, Severní energetická a.s., objection with no reason specified to the merger between EPH and East Bohemia Energy Holding Limited. The objection was dismissed by the Office for the Protection of Competition on 11 April 2012, and hence the plaintiff filed a complaint to the court against its decision. According to the latest hearing held on 11 March 2015, EPH filed a complaint against the decision of the lower court which annulled the decision of Office for the Protection of Competition. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled in favour of EPH and returned the case to the lower court for further proceedings. However, information on the development of the case could not be identified.

In a case from 2015, found at the Supreme Administrative Court, EPH was mentioned as the shareholder of the company Pražská teplárenská Holding a.s., in which the plaintiff of who the name is omitted, filed a complaint against Pražská teplárenská Holding a.s.’ decision to not provide the plaintiff certain information. A case from 2021, found at the Supreme Administrative Court, pertained to a petition filed by EPH’s subsidiary EP Energy Trading a.s., whereas EPH was just mentioned as a shareholder, not a litigant. Overall, no adverse information was found in official Czech sources concerning EPH.

20

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

3.4.4

Regulatory and law enforcement

Official Czech sources revealed 86 non-adverse matches involving EPH. As most sources have only online publications and no searchable databases, identifiers for individuals are not always published. The information on minor law-offences and the dossiers of those currently under investigation are not publicly available. Detailed information on decisions published by the Czech National Bank before 1 January 2009 is not available. The Office for the Protection of Competition (referred to hereinafter as UOHS) revealed 67 non-adverse matches involving EPH in procedures which mainly regarded merger and acquisition permissions issued by UOHS. The Czech National Bank revealed 19 non-adverse matches mentioning EPH in connection to its business activities. Overall, no adverse information was found in official Czech sources concerning EPH.

3.5

Media

3.5.1

General

EPH has a high profile in the Czech-language internet and media. Most references pertained to EPH’s business activities, such as purchases of assets in France15, Italy16, Northern Ireland17 and UK18, acquisitions19, as well as to its registration details published by business registries.20 Due to the size of EPH’s media profile and time and budget constraints for the project, research was focused on its reputation and related core adverse and noteworthy information, and not the reputation of its associated companies, whereas EPH was mentioned in a role of the parent company. For the sake of completeness, we have enclosed various summaries of press publications (with its source references) regarding EPH as annex 4 to this report. In our interview, we have discussed with Mr Křetínský the impact of the war in Ukraine on the businesses of EPH and other companies related to Mr Křetínský and the deals with Gazprom as mentioned in various articles and outlined in the following subparagraph. 3.5.2

Impact of war in Ukraine, deals with Gazprom and ties with Kremlin

On an unspecified date, the Czech independent news portal Deník Referendum reported that the war which had escalated in February 2022 after the invasion of Russian troops in Ukraine might have an impact on the performance of EPH as the largest transporter of Russian gas to the European countries through its subsidiary - Slovak gas pipeline operator Eustream, whose contractual counterparty is directly the Russian gas concern Gazprom.21 It was mentioned that the possibility of Russian gas supply ending completely could cause a great financial loss to EPH’s subsidiaries and EPH itself. It was also mentioned that EPH 15 https://www.euro.cz/byznys/kretinsky-chce-koupit-dve-uhelne-elektrarny-ve-francii-tvrdi-list-le-monde-1428445 16 https://www.euro.cz/byznys/eph-dal-investuje-do-biomasy-koupil-elektrarnu-na-severu-italie-1438799 17 https://www.lidovky.cz/byznys/firmy-a-trhy/firma-eph-kterou-vlastni-miliardar-kretinsky-kupuje-dve-

severoirske-elektrarny.A190423_151917_firmy-trhy_krku 18 https://echo24.cz/a/i4tHN/eph-definitivne-ziskal-dve-paroplynove-elektrarny-v-britanii 19 https://www.fxstreet.cz/zpravodajstvi-134473.html 20 https://rejstrik.penize.cz/dph/cz28356250-energeticky-a-prumyslovy-holding-a-s 21 https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/ekonomika-firmy-plynova-krize-dorazi-na-imperium-daniela-kretinskeho-

210031

21

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

would profit as the price of the gas would rise.22 According to the rating agency Fitch, the negative outlook reflects the material risk of a stoppage of payments by Gazprom, potentially also arising from the risk of a complete stoppage of gas supplies from Russia to the EU.23 The same article further indicated that EPH’s connection with Russia’s Gazprom, a state-owned company and the largest exporter of natural gas in the world, affected the rating of some of Mr Křetínský’s companies, allegedly causing the shares price to drop, such as British Royal Mail, which is partly and indirectly owned by Mr Křetínský.24 Another Czech news portal, britskelisty.cz added in August 2022, that the UK was planning to conduct a national security review of British Royal Mail's ownership.25 The national security review was supposed to check Mr Křetínský’s ties to the Russian gas industry, given EPH’s close ties to Gazprom.

On 31 October 2022, the Financial Times reported that ‘the UK has called off its probe into Czech billionaire Daniel Křetínský’s plans to increase his stake in Royal mail, bringing to a close one of the first reviews to be announced under the government’s new national security powers’.26 A few years earlier, in 2014, when the conflict between Ukraine and Russia started, Czech media portal idnes.cz reported that Eustream and EPH had a problem after the EU promised Ukraine to import some of its gas to Europe instead of Russian gas.27 Reportedly, as Eustream was managing gas pipes supplying Russian gas to Europe, they were not sure how to assist Ukraine without permission from Gazprom and not upsetting the Russian Government. Nevertheless, at time of the article, it was said that the plans were postponed. It was further speculated in this article that EPH was in a struggle, as at that time one of the shareholders of EPH was Mr Kellner’s PPF group, which reportedly had close ties to the Russian Government.

The media also reported that Eustream even earlier tested possibilities of importing Ukrainian gas; however, Western European energy companies, of which the names are unspecified, did not support the plan as it might cause a conflict with Gazprom, on whose pricing policy their economy depended.28 The same article further speculated that when EPH wanted to acquire shares in the Slovak state-owned company Slovenský plynárenský priemysel a.s. (referred to hereinafter as SPP) in 2013, former Slovak Prime Minister Mr Robert Fico’s (referred to hereinafter as Mr Fico) government allegedly set a condition for taking over SPP, according to which Mr Křetínský was supposed to negotiate with Gazprom to improve the long-term gas contract for Slovakia, which was considered unfavourable at the time. Negotiations on the new price ended and the agreement between SPP and Gazprom was reached just after the EU announced the first anti-Russian sanctions as punishment for the control of Crimea. In 2016, Mr Křetínský was reported by the Slovak newsagent Euractiv to have travelled to Moscow, Russia together with then Slovak Prime Minister Mr Fico’s, in office between 2006 and 2008, again between 2012 22 https://denikreferendum.cz/clanek/33946-rusky-plyn-je-slepici-snasejici-kretinskemu-zlata-vejce-valka-mu-ji-

muze-vzit 23 https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/ekonomika-firmy-plynova-krize-dorazi-na-imperium-daniela-kretinskeho-

210031 24 https://denikreferendum.cz/clanek/33946-rusky-plyn-je-slepici-snasejici-kretinskemu-zlata-vejce-valka-mu-ji-

muze-vzit 25 https://www.blisty.cz/art/109519-miliardari-kretinsky-a-tkac-celi-ve-velke-britanii-bezpecnostni-kontrole-kvuli-

akciim-britske-posty.html 26 Oliver Telling, ‘UK calls off probe into Czech billionaire’s plan to raise stake in Royal Mail’, Financial Times, 31

October 2022. 27 https://www.idnes.cz/ekonomika/zahranicni/slovaci-chteji-pomoci-ukrajine-s-plynem-ale-nenastvat-

gazprom.A140425_211509_eko-zahranicni_zt 28 https://www.idnes.cz/ekonomika/zahranicni/slovaci-chteji-pomoci-ukrajine-s-plynem-ale-nenastvat-

gazprom.A140425_211509_eko-zahranicni_zt

22

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

and 2018, in order to meet with then general director of the Russian energy company Gazprom, Mr Aleksej Miller (referred to hereinafter as Mr Miller).29 Mr Křetínský went with Mr Fico as a member of the supervisory board of Eustream and co-owner of the energy company SPP, where the involved parties discussed further distribution of Russian gas through Slovak companies.30 The Slovak company SPP Infrastructure A.S.’ (referred to hereinafter as SPPI) 51 percent owner is SPP, wholly owned by the Ministry of Economy of Slovakia, whilst 49 percent is controlled by Mr Křetínský through the Netherlands-based Slovak Gas Holding B.V.31, wholly owned by EP Infrastructure a.s. (referred to hereinafter as EPIF).32 EPIF is in turn owned by EPH for 69 percent, and Luxembourg-based CEI Investments SARL for 31 percent, which is wholly owned by Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets.33 Compromat.ru, a Russian compromising materials website aggregating publications from different media sources, reported on 9 February 2021 that the operator of the Slovak gas transportation system Eustream, entered into an agreement with Russian company LLC Gazprom Export in March 2017 for access to the gas transmission network for a period up to October 2050, for transferring Russian gas from Slovakia to Europe.

LLC Gazprom Export, being part of Gazprom group/PJSC Gazprom34, was sanctioned by Poland in 2022.35 The sports-related multimedia platform Sports.ru reported on 15 December 2021 that upon learning that the largest French newspaper Le Monde was being bought by Mr Křetínský, the editors were shocked. Reportedly, French tabloids wrote that Křetínský, who works with the Russian majority state-owned energy corporation Gazprom36, could turn out to be ‘Putin’s man’, and alleged that the global idea of the purchase was to block critical articles about Russia that often appeared in Le Monde.37 In the interview on 23 November 2022, Mr Křetínský provided background information on his views on the geopolitical policy and situation of EPH and its related companies in general and the relationship and negotiations of EPH and other companies with Gazprom more specific. He explained that he never met anybody of Gazprom before the agreement between SPP and Gazprom was reached. He indicated that he only travels to Russia for business meetings related to EPH. He disagreed with the suggestions made in the press articles. On behalf of Mr Křetínský, the following statement was provided in response to the draft report: ‘EPH has no ties to Kremlin and Russia outside of gas transmission related to eustream a.s.

(Slovak gas transmission system operator), which is a relationship dating several decades and regulated by strict rules (i.e. rules imposed on gas transmission system operators). Eustream a.s. relationship to Gazprom does not go beyond relationships that other gas transmission system operators in Europe have. On the contrary, neither EPH nor eustream a.s. never invested into a joint venture project or similar partnership with Gazprom as many other operators did (such as Shell, E.ON, Uniper, Engie or OMV). No shareholding in EPH is connected to Russian individuals. DK’s and PT’s investments into media companies were not conducted in order to manipulate public opinion and HIG’s research may certainly confirm that there is no evidence that our media anyhow acted to improve public image of Russia’. 29 https://euractiv.sk/section/vonkajsie-vztahy/news/fico-a-putin-veria-v-napravu-obchodnych-vztahov/ 30 https://m.echo24.cz/a/iqxHM/fico-je-moskve-kvuli-plynu-a-vzal-s-sebou-i-kretinskeho 31 http://www.sppi.sk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SPPI-Individualna-UZ-Vyrocna-sprava-k-

30.9.2018_EN_final.pdf 32 https://www.sppi.sk/en/stockholders/ 33 https://www.epinfrastructure.cz/en/about-us/shareholder-structure/ 34 https://www.gazprom.ru/about/marketing/europe/ 35 https://www.rbc.ru/business/29/09/2022/6335d3a29a79479bef4e53e7 36 https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/31/russias-gazprom-surge-after-bumper-profit-and-

dividendannouncement.html 37 https://www.sports.ru/tribuna/blogs/urbanhymns/2996435.html

23

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

As mentioned in the first chapter of this report, we explained that some public sources of information, such as press data banks, contain information that may be subjective in nature. In this context, we searched for additional information, but determined no substantiation in other public sources of the suggestions made in the articles above and the articles concerning EPH and Mr Křetínský in the annexes 4 and 5 of this report. 3.5.3

Article ‘The “coal villain” of the European Union?’

In the Energy Research & Social Science database of Elsevier, an article, named ‘The “coal villain” of the European Union? Path dependence, profiteering and the role of the Energetický a průmyslový holding (EPH) company in the energy transition’ was published on 14 April 2021. Three scholars of the Department of International Relations and European Studies of the Faculty of Social Studies of the Czech Masaryk University wrote this article concerning the history and role of EPH in the European energy market.38 This article concerning EPH was mentioned to Mr Křetínský in the interview. Mr Křetínský mentioned that he was not aware of this article. After we provided Mr Křetínský with this article the following day, he sent us his response, which is enclosed as annex 3.

38 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629621001596

24

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

4

F I N D I N G S W I T H R E S P E CT T O M R DA N I E L K ŘE T Í N S KÝ

4.1

General

Below we display the findings with respect to Mr Křetínský as obtained from the documentation provided on behalf of Mr Křetínský and from public sources.

4.2 4.2.1

Personal circumstances General

In this paragraph, the personal background of Mr Křetínský will be described. We have met Mr Křetínský in person on 23 November 2022. In this integrity due diligence, we have verified the correctness and completeness of the personal and corporate data provided on behalf of Mr Křetínský in public sources. 4.2.2

Family

According to information provided by representatives of Mr Křetínský and from public sources, Mr Křetínský was born in the Czech Republic. Mr Křetínský currently holds a Czech citizenship, and his residential address is in Prague, Czech Republic. Mr Křetínský’s father, Mr Mojmír Křetínský, is a professor and former head of the Department of Computer Science of Masaryk University in Brno, whereas Mr Křetínský's mother, Ms Židlická, is a former judge of the Czech Constitutional Court, who was in office between 2004 and 2014. In global compliance and sanctions databases, Mr Křetínský is identified as a PEP for formerly being a holder of several positions in Slovak partly state-owned entities and due to his mother being a PEP.39 4.2.3

Education

According to public sources, it appears that Mr Křetínský holds a doctoral degree in law, obtained at Masaryk University in Brno in 1999.

4.3 4.3.1

Employment history and business activities General

In this paragraph, the findings regarding Mr Křetínský’s employment and business background are presented as retrieved from the questionnaire, interview and public sources. 4.3.2

Employment history

According to the available information, Mr Křetínský started working as para-legal at the Czech law firm Gottweis & Partner from an unspecified date until 1999. From 1999 until 2003, Mr Křetínský worked as lawyer at J&T Group. In the following years up to 2009, Mr Křetínský was responsible for J&T’s investment activities in the energy sector.

39 In the FATF 2013 Guidance report, it is stated that the handling of an individual who is no longer entrusted with a

prominent public function should be based on an assessment of risk.

25

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

4.3.3

Business interests

According to the available information, Mr Křetínský has stakes in multiple local and foreign listed and private companies, of which many directly and indirectly via EPH and the Luxembourgish investment company Vesa Equity Investment S.a.r.l., amongst others. In the interview, Mr Křetínský described the background of his business relationship with Mr Tkáč and the reasons for the collaboration in their joint investments. He mentioned that he is grateful that Mr Tkáč gave him the opportunity to do business and therefore he always offers him the option to co-invest as a passive minority shareholder. Mr Křetínský explained that, as EPH is a strong cashflow generator, all investments are financed by equity, bank finances of leading banks and bonds listed at European stock exchanges. 4.3.4

Debt and bankruptcy

Searches conducted at official Czech sources revealed no matches involving Mr Křetínský in bankruptcy or insolvency procedures. Debts and bankruptcy checks are available in the Czech Republic, and searches are conducted using the names of individuals. The Register of Insolvency of the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic publishes information on bankruptcy proceedings initiated after 1 January 2008.

4.4

Finances

4.4.1

General

In this paragraph, we describe relevant financial aspects in the context of the integrity due diligence. We emphasize that we have not conducted an audit into the financial situation of Mr Křetínský. 4.4.2

Origin of income and wealth

In our research concerning the origin of income and wealth of Mr Křetínský, we focused on establishing a proper understanding of the sources of his income and wealth. In official public sources, no information is available regarding the origin and volume of income and wealth of individuals. In the questionnaire, Mr Křetínský explained that the origin of his income and wealth comes from two companies, EP Corporate Group a.s. and EPH. An overview of his direct and indirect ownership interests per 31 October 2022 was provided on his behalf. Due to the extensive number of his direct and indirect ownership interests and the time and budget constraints for the project, research concerning the origin of income and wealth was focused on EPH’s annual reports. From these annual reports, we learned that an amount of EUR 5.1 billion was paid by EPH as dividends to its shareholders, besides the acquisition of its own shares in the years 2014 and 2017 for the amounts of EUR 1.08 billion and EUR 1.5 billion as explained in subparagraph 3.2.3 of this report. Given the extensive number of his direct and indirect ownership interests in local and foreign listed and private companies, it can be expected that a substantial additional amount of dividend is also derived from these companies.

In our integrity due diligence, we have gathered no substantiated indications that the origin of income and wealth of Mr Křetínský originated wholly or partly from illicit activities.

4.5 4.5.1

Disputes / litigation General

In this paragraph, findings will be presented concerning disputes and litigation in relation to Mr Křetínský, as found in public sources in the Czech Republic and other countries.

26

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

4.5.2

Litigation

Searches conducted at official Czech civil and criminal litigation sources revealed one non-adverse match from 2017 found at the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, involving Mr Křetínský in legal proceedings only as the third party not affected by the court’s ruling in manner. The database of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic has been publishing decisions as of 2000, and there is no information on how far back the database of the Constitutional Court goes. Most sources provide detailed information on decisions, but some sources omit individuals’ names. 4.5.3

Regulatory and law enforcement

Official Czech sources revealed 19 non-adverse matches involving Mr Křetínský. As most sources have only online publications and no searchable databases, identifiers for individuals are not always published. The information on minor law-offences and the dossiers of those currently under investigation are not publicly available. Detailed information on decisions published by the Czech National Bank before 1 January 2009 is not available. The Czech National Bank revealed 11 matches involving Mr Křetínský, where he was mainly mentioned as the chairman of the board of directors and co-owner of EPH Financing CZ a.s., and he also came up in six matches referring to company reports published by the Czech National Bank. In eight matches, Mr Křetínský was mentioned as the representative of EPH Group and Cyprus-based Mackarel Enterprises Limited in decisions published by the Office for the Protection of Competition of the Czech Republic, allowing the mergers of said companies with other participating firms in respective public procurement processes.

4.6

Media

4.6.1

General

In the due diligence, we have consulted public sources, among which are publications such as press articles. Furthermore, several sources have been consulted via the internet with respect to Mr Křetínský. Mr Křetínský has a high profile in the Czech-language internet and media, being referenced as a Czech billionaire, owner of the Czech football club Sparta Prague, chairman of the board of directors at EPH and founder of EP Corporate Group and EP Equity Investment, aside from appearing in publications as a power-plant, retail chain and media house owner. Czech weekly magazine Euro estimated Mr Křetínský’s net worth to be CZK 94 billion (approximately EUR 3.86 billion)40, listing him to be the fourth wealthiest Czech in 2022 on 26 September. In our research, we focused on indications of corruption and bribery, amongst others. Some adverse information involving Mr Křetínský was identified and is presented further below and in annex 3 of this report. 4.6.2

Political exposure

General 4.6.2.1 In Czech media articles, Mr Křetínský’s ties to certain political parties and politicians were referenced. In the following subsections, we will describe the various adverse publications.

40 Given the rate of the end of September 2022.

27

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

In the interview, Mr Křetínský explained that in his position at EPH he meets politicians on many occasions and in different settings. He stressed that he has never taken or provided any bribes, nor that he spent any holidays with politicians or sponsored political parties and politicians, except the case explained in section 4.6.2.4 of this report. He also mentioned that EPH never bought stakes in state-owned energy companies from a state, but always from private companies, being listed energy companies. The former head of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet Ms Jana Nečasová 4.6.2.2 In 2019, various portals reported on his involvement with the former head of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet Ms Jana (formerly Nagyová) Nečasová (referred to hereinafter as Ms Nečasová), who was at the time facing charges for tax evasion and potential corruption.41 According to an article, Mr Křetínský admitted in his testimony at the Prague District Court giving two necklaces worth CZK 350,000 (approximately EUR 13,650) and CZK 158,000 (approximately EUR 6,162)42 as presents to Ms Nečasová.43 The court hearing aimed to establish whether Ms Nečasová was taking bribes from politicians and businessmen in 2012 and 2013, with a promise to arrange meetings with the then Prime Minister Mr Petr Nečas (referred to hereinafter as Mr Nečas), in office between 2010 and 2013, or to lobby for their interest.

The court eventually dropped all charges against Ms Nečasová. In 2022, the court reported that the case has been reopened. In our interview, Mr Křetínský described the background of this matter. He gave insight into the personal background of his meetings with Ms Nečasová. No additional information on Mr Křetínský in connection to his case was reported in the public sources. Further internet and media searches could not establish whether Mr Křetínský used his political affiliation to Ms Nečasová in an illicit manner, although per the media, he faced no legal consequences related to said court trial. French politicians 4.6.2.3 As reported by the Czech online newspaper Hospodářské noviny (Byznys Ihned division) in September 2019, Mr Křetínský met several French politicians.44 One of them was the former French Prime Minister Mr Édouard Philippe, in office between 2017 and 2020, who was at the time also a member of the National Assembly, whom Mr Křetínský reportedly met in France in 2016.

It was suggested in the article that Mr Křetínský was aiming to lobby for his own future investment in the half state-owned energy company EDF.45 According to another article, Mr Křetínský had no success in this lobbying related to EDF.46 Also, the French President Mr Emmanuel Macron (referred to hereinafter as Mr Macron), in office since 2017, allegedly helped Mr Křetínský enter the French energy sector in 2018, but it was not specified in which way exactly. Moreover, it was reported in 2022 that Mr Křetínský changed an editorial decision with regards to a headline in a French magazine Marianne, of which he is the main shareholder, in order to provide support to Mr Macron prior to the second round of presidential elections in France in April 2022. The Society of Marianne Editors objected to it in a published statement, claiming it was an attack on the

41 https://www.novinky.cz/krimi/clanek/miliardar-kretinsky-priznal-statisicove-dary-pro-nagyovou-40283031 42 Both amounts given the rate in 2012 43 https://www.irozhlas.cz/komentare/komentar-kniha-roberta-slachty-protimafiansky-utvar-vydavatelstvi-patrik-

tkac_2003070629_vtk 44 https://byznys.hn.cz/c1-66635930-tkac-a-kretinsky-koupili-temer-petiprocentni-podil-francouzskeho-

obchodniho-retezce-casino-patri-k-prednim-hracum 45 https://byznys.hn.cz/c1-66635930-tkac-a-kretinsky-koupili-temer-petiprocentni-podil-francouzskeho-

obchodniho-retezce-casino-patri-k-prednim-hracum 46 https://www.euro.cz/byznys/polska-aktiva-edf-ktera-chtel-koupit-kretinsky-prebira-domaci-pge-za-29-miliard-

1348951

28

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

independence of media. Marianne’s editor-in-chief, however, claimed that the decision to change the disputed headline was made independently.47 In the interview, Mr Křetínský’s alleged meetings with French politicians were discussed. He confirmed that he had in his role as representative of an energy company meetings with French and other politicians to discuss developments in the energy sector. He further clarified the background of his interests in France and the reasons for his French investments. Aside from what was mentioned in the articles, we obtained no other articles and no substantiation of any possible misuse of these political connections. The former Prime Minister, Mr Mirek Topolánek 4.6.2.4 In October 2021, an article published on the website of the Czech Radio news portal iROZHLAS reporting on EPH’s activities and its environmental impact - pointed out the correlation between Mr Křetínský and the Civic Democratic Party (referred to hereinafter as ODS), specifically, its member and former Prime Minister, Mr Mirek Topolánek (referred to hereinafter as Mr Topolánek), in office between 2006 and 2009, during whose tenure Mr Křetínský’s EPH established itself among the most powerful energy concerns in the country.

Upon resigning from the government, Mr Topolánek joined the leadership of EPH.48 According to public sources, Mr Křetínský further supported Mr Topolánek in 2017, when the latter announced his presidential candidacy, by personally sponsoring him with CZK 350,000 (approximately EUR 13,300)49.50 In the interview, Mr Křetínský explained the background and the professional reasons for hiring of Mr Topolánek. During our research, we found no indications in public sources that Mr Křetínský used his affiliation to Mr Topolánek in an illicit manner. Lobbying for the weak form of waste legislation 4.6.2.5 Additionally, an article published on 12 October 2021 by Britské listy, a Czech-language cultural and political internet daily, reported that Mr Křetínský, with members of parliament from ODS and ANO 2011 (referred to hereinafter as ANO), lobbied for the weak form of waste legislation that would be beneficial for Mr Křetínský’s waste management company AVE CZ odpadové hospodářství s.r.o.

It was further stressed that Křetínský’s media were taking the side of the former Prime Minister Mr Babiš, in office from 2017 until 2021, while opposition parties and NGOs saw Mr Babiš as responsible for the edging ‘oligarchizing’ of the state, a process that they say would accelerate if they return to power.51 In the interview, Mr Křetínský explained his views on his participations in the Czech, French and other media companies. In our research, we found no substantiated indications in public sources that Mr Křetínský misused his interests in media companies. ‘Standard’ relations with Mr Babiš 4.6.2.6 In September 2021, another article published by the news portal ParlamentníListy mentioned that Mr Křetínský has ‘standard’ relations with Mr Babiš, although he has lately been connected mainly with the Czech Social Democratic Party Česká strana sociálně demokratická, (referred to hereinafter as CSSD). There were no indications in public sources that Mr Křetínský used his political affiliation to Mr Babiš or CSSD in an illicit manner. 47 https://www.irozhlas.cz/zivotni-styl/spolecnost/daniel-kretinsky-casopis-francie-marianne-nezavislost-medii-

prezidentske-volby_2204201010_aur 48 https://blisty.cz/art/105458-ceske-debate-o-zmene-klimatu-dominuje-energeticka-lobby 49 Given the rate in 2017. 50 https://www.irozhlas.cz/zpravy-domov/mirek-topolanek-daniel-kretinsky-prezidentske-volby-2018-eph-milos-

zeman-kampan_1712130600_kno 51 https://blisty.cz/art/105458-ceske-debate-o-zmene-klimatu-dominuje-energeticka-lobby

29

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

4.6.2.7 The former Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia Mr Marián Čalfa In January 2019, it was reported that Mr Marián Čalfa (referred to hereinafter as Mr Čalfa), former Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia from 1989 until 1992, was appointed member of the board of directors at EPH’s subsidiary Plzeňská teplárenská a.s.52

In the interview, Mr Křetínský explained the background and the professional reasons for hiring of Mr Čalfa. During our research, we found no indications in public sources that Mr Křetínský used his affiliation to Mr Čalfa in an illicit manner. Close ties to various politicians 4.6.2.8 In 2019, the pro-Russian Czech news portal aeronet.cz mentioned Mr Křetínský as a partner of the J&T financial group, whose several associated individuals, including Mr Tkáč and Mr Jaroslav Tvrdik (referred to hereinafter as Mr Tvrdik) were mentioned as having close ties to Mr Jiri Drahos (referred to hereinafter as Mr Drahos), member of the Czech Senate from Prague 4 in office since 2018 and a candidate of the Czech Presidential elections in 2018.53 Mr Tvrdik, who is also a former Minister of Defence, in office from 2001 until 2003, was further noted as having ties with the Czech Social Democratic Party CSSD, which was also confirmed by other online sources.54 No direct ties between Mr Křetínský, Mr Drahos and CSSD were mentioned in the context of any malpractices, specifically related to Mr Křetínský. As reported in 2009 by several Czech media outlets, including iDnes daily, Mr Křetínský’s long-time friend was Ms Cétlová,55 who is the current deputy of the Supervision and Control Department at the Czech Ministry of Justice, where she has also held other high-ranking positions since 2014.

Between 1999 and 2014, Ms Cétlová additionally occupied several positions at the Czech Ministry of Finance, the Appellate Committee of the Czech National Bank and the Czech Securities and Futures Commission.56 There are no reports online that Mr Křetínský misused this connection. One article published on 3 February 2009 by the Czech news portal iDNES.cz reported that Mr Křetínský allegedly had ties to Mr Milan Jančík and Mr Martin Langmajer from ODS, as well as with Mr Miroslav Poche and Mr Petr Hulinský from CSSD, all associated with the state-owned Pražská energetika a.s. engaged in gas trade services, in which Mr Křetínský had an interest via EPH.57 There were no sources mentioning Mr Křetínský using ties with these persons and parties in an unlawful manner. 4.6.3

Alleged bribery in MIBRAG case

The Czech daily Lidovky speculated in an article from 20 June 2014 that Mr Křetínský and Mr Martin Roman (referred to hereinafter as Mr Roman), former head of the majority-state owned company ČEZ, received bribes from sellers of the German mining company MIBRAG.58 Bribes in the amount of CZK

52 https://www.e15.cz/byznys/prumysl-a-energetika/do-vedeni-plzenske-teplarenske-zasedl-calfa-1355434 53 https://aeronet.cz/news/cinska-mafie-se-dostala-az-do-okruhu-financovani-volebni-kampane-jiriho-drahose-

prezidentskemu-kandidatovi-lepsolidi-pristalo-na-volebnim-uctu-13-milionu-korun-od-osob-napojenych-na-tvrdika/ 54 https://www.idnes.cz/zpravy/domaci/tvrdik-muze-byt-lidrem-cssd-na-

vysocine.A011028_085227_jihl_zpravy_kot 55 https://www.idnes.cz/zpravy/archiv/kdo-je-daniel-kretinsky-sef-sparty-a-spoluvlastnik-holdingu-ktery-zakladaji-

ppf-a-j-t.A090203_131721_kavarna_bos 56 https://www.ahaonline.cz/clanek/sport/44999/petera-vs-kretinsky-valka-prachacu.html 57 https://www.idnes.cz/zpravy/archiv/kdo-je-daniel-kretinsky-sef-sparty-a-spoluvlastnik-holdingu-ktery-zakladaji-

ppf-a-j-t.A090203_131721_kavarna_bos 58 https://www.lidovky.cz/byznys/policie-proveruje-kompro-na-kretinskeho-a-romana.A140619_212029_firmy-

trhy_sk

30

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

two billion (approximately EUR 76 million)59 were allegedly received to facilitate ČEZ and J&T’s 2009 acquisition of MIBRAG. The said funds had supposedly secretly flown into unnamed companies associated with Mr Křetínský and Mr Roman during the MIBRAG trade as illegal commissions or bribes paid by MIBRAG’s shareholders, American URS Corporation (referred to hereinafter as URS) and NRG Energy Inc. (referred to hereinafter as NRG), at the time to facilitate the acquisition, but no additional details on this were offered in the article. At the time, Mr Křetínský was reportedly considering filing a complaint against unknown individual(s).60 The sale of MIBRAG’s shares in 2009 was also the subject of investigation by the German police and its public prosecutors in Bochum and Halle, with unidentified outcomes of the cases.61 A year later an article with the same scope appeared in the German press.62 In our interview, this case was discussed with Mr Křetínský. He has no recollection of the case as he was never questioned by the police or another authority in relation to this case. No additional information on Mr Křetínský, URS and/or NRG in connection to his case was reported in German, American or Czech public sources. Further internet and media searches could not substantiate the suggestions in these articles.

Furthermore, as per an article published on 22 April 2015 by Hospodářské noviny (Byznys Ihned division), two years after the mentioned purchase of MIBRAG, ČEZ decided to sell its MIBRAG shares to J&T for a sum that was almost half of what ČEZ had initially paid - for EUR 130 million, whereas in 2009, it paid EUR 206 million for the said shares. This became the subject of a police investigation63 in 201364 after the Czech foundation Endowment Fund against Corruption filed a criminal complaint against the transaction, claiming that ČEZ discounted its shares based on suspicious accounting and that this majority state-owned company could have earned more from the sale, but the police concluded in 2015 that there were no suspicions of a criminal act in connection to the transaction and postponed the investigation.65 Mr Křetínský and Mr Roman were questioned as witnesses during the said investigation, with no details provided about their testimonies. There were also speculations found in public sources that the decision by the police to stop the investigation may have been influenced by a circle of Mr Babiš, then Czech Minister of Finance, confidants as Mr Babiš was personally interested in the company ČEZ.66 No further updates on the complaint were reported in public sources.

The veracity of said allegations could not be confirmed through public sources, with no legal consequences mentioned in this regard for Mr Křetínský either. Although Mr Křetínský was one of the witnesses in the MIBRAG acquisition case, there was no reference in public sources that he was investigated for said allegations in particular. No information was found on whether the investigation was reopened at a later date or that Mr Křetínský was officially accused of committing any crimes during MIBRAG’s privatisation.

59 Given the rate in 2009. 60 https://www.lidovky.cz/byznys/firmy-a-trhy/policie-proveruje-kompro-na-kretinskeho-a-

romana.A140619_212029_firmy-trhy_sk 61 https://politicky-real.github.io/ 62 https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/energie/schmiergeld-verdacht-bei-mibrag-verkauf-schmutzige-

geschaefte-mit-braunkohle/12496158.html 63 https://byznys.hn.cz/c1-63902820-policie-odlozila-pripad-ve-kterem-cez-koupil-a-prodal-podil-v-nemeckych-

dolech-mibrag 64 https://www.respekt.cz/fokus/spolecny-obchod-cez-a-j-t-postihla-ztrata-pameti 65 https://byznys.hn.cz/c1-63902820-policie-odlozila-pripad-ve-kterem-cez-koupil-a-prodal-podil-v-nemeckych-

dolech-mibrag 66 https://politicky-real.github.io/index.html

31

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

5

F I N D I N G S W I T H R E S P E CT T O M R PAT R I K T KÁ Č

5.1

General

Below we display our findings with respect to Mr Tkáč as obtained from the documentation provided on behalf of Mr Tkáč and in public sources.

5.2 5.2.1

Personal circumstances General

In this paragraph, the personal background of Mr Tkáč will be described. We have met Mr Tkáč in person on 23 November 2022. In this integrity due diligence, we have verified the correctness and completeness of the personal and corporate data provided on behalf of Mr Tkáč in public sources. 5.2.2

Family

Mr Tkáč’s full details are Mr Patrik Tkáč, born in Slovakia. Mr Tkáč is married to Ms Iveta Tkáčová (referred to hereinafter as Ms Tkáč). We have not conducted research into Ms Tkáč. Mr Tkáč’s father is Mr Jozef Tkáč, the former head of the SOE Národní rozvojová banka (referred to hereinafter as SOE National Development Bank). Searches through the global compliance and sanctions database did not associate Mr Tkáč with any adverse issues, only mentioning him as a PEP due to his connection to Mr Křetínský, who is listed as a PEP. 5.2.3

Education

According to public sources, it appears that Mr Tkáč holds a degree at the Faculty of Economics, obtained at the University of Economics in Bratislava in 1996. During his studies, Mr Tkáč completed an internship at VP Bank VADUZ in Liechtenstein and was subsequently granted a brokerage license by the Slovak Ministry of Finance.

5.3 5.3.1

Employment history and business activities General

In this paragraph, the findings regarding Mr Tkáč's employment and business background are presented as retrieved from the questionnaire, interview and public sources. 5.3.2

Employment history

According to Mr Tkáč and public sources, he has always been working at companies related to J&T Finance Group SE (referred to hereinafter as J&T Finance Group). 5.3.3

Business interests

According to Mr Tkáč and public sources, he is the vice-chairman of the board of directors, co-founder and, reportedly co-owner of the international financial and private banking services provider and investment group J&T Finance Group, and vice-chairman of J&T Banka a.s. (referred to hereinafter as J&T Banka).

32

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

His engagement includes numerous top managerial positions at various companies, mostly engaged in investment and banking. According to public sources, Mr Tkáč indirectly owns numerous foreign and domestic private and listed companies operating all around the world. 5.3.4

Debts and bankruptcy

Searches conducted at official Czech sources revealed no matches involving Mr Tkáč in bankruptcy or insolvency procedures. Debts and bankruptcy checks are available in the Czech Republic, and searches are conducted using the names of individuals. The Register of Insolvency of the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic publishes information on bankruptcy proceedings initiated after 1 January 2008.

5.4

Finances

5.4.1

General

In this paragraph, we describe relevant financial aspects in the context of the integrity due diligence. We emphasize that we have not conducted an audit into the financial situation of Mr Tkáč. 5.4.2

Origin of income and wealth

In our research concerning the origin of income and wealth of Mr Tkáč, we focused on establishing a proper understanding of the sources of his income and wealth. In official public sources, no information is available regarding the origin and volume of income and wealth of Mr Tkáč. In the questionnaire, Mr Tkáč explained that the origin of his income and wealth comes from his participation in J&T Private Equity Group Limited. An overview of his direct and indirect ownership interests per 31 October 2022 was provided on his behalf. Due to the extensive number of his direct and indirect ownership interests and the time and budget constraints for the project, research concerning the origin of income and wealth was focused on EPH’s annual reports. From these annual reports, we learned that a substantial amount was paid as dividends to its shareholders and as acquisition of own shares. Mr Tkáč informed us that he also receives income from his shareholding in J&T Private Equity Group. Given the extensive number of his direct and indirect ownership interests in local and foreign listed and private companies, it can be expected that a substantial additional amount of dividend is derived from these companies. In our integrity due diligence, we have gathered no substantiated indications that the origin of income and wealth of Mr Tkáč originated wholly or partly from illicit activities.

5.4.3

Energetický a prumyslovy holding a.s.

In the interview, Mr Tkáč explained from his side the context and reasons of the roles of Mr Kellner and Mr Křetínský, and the important changes involved in EPH’s capital over the years, as mentioned in subparagraph 3.2.3 of this report. As mentioned previously, searches conducted at official and public sources revealed no substantiated questions concerning issues related to EPH’s equity, cashflow and other financial aspects. The information provided and discussed in the interviews with Mr Tkáč and Mr Křetínský does not lead to additional questions concerning the finances of EPH in the context of this integrity due diligence.

33

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

5.5 5.5.1

Disputes / litigation General

In this paragraph, the findings will be presented concerning disputes and litigation in relation to Mr Tkáč, as found in public sources in the Czech Republic and other countries. Litigation 5.5.2 5.5.2.1 General Searches conducted at official Czech civil and criminal litigation sources revealed one match involving Mr Tkáč in legal proceedings, which is described in the following paragraph. The database of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic has been publishing decisions as of 2000, and there is no information on how far back the database of the Constitutional Court goes. Most sources provide detailed information on decisions, but some sources omit individuals’ names.

Patrik Tkáč vs. Tomáš Berka, (III.ÚS 1911/21) The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, 15 July 2021 On 15 July 2021, Mr Tkáč filed a constitutional complaint at the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic against the decision with number 20 Cdo 1852/2020-874 of the Supreme Court Prague 4 from 27 April 2021, requesting the decision’s annulment. Namely, the Supreme Court Prague 4 rejected the proposal issued by the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona, USA from 2011, obliging Mr Tomáš Berka (referred to hereinafter as Mr Berka) to pay Mr Tkáč the compensation in the amount of USD 100,000 (approximately EUR 83,000)67. On 17 August 2021, the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic dismissed Mr Tkáč’s complaint. No information has been identified on whether Mr Tkáč filed any additional complaints against the court’s decision in the meantime. 5.5.2.2

In September 2009, the Czech media reported that Mr Tkáč was suing Mr Berka in one of the courts in the US state of Arizona, accusing him of defamation. Reportedly, Mr Berka was the shareholder of one of the companies controlled by J&T at the time, and, due to unspecified reasons, he allegedly started posting negative comments about J&T on certain internet portals.68 No other details were provided by the media. 5.5.3

Regulatory and law enforcement

Official Czech sources revealed six non-adverse matches involving Mr Tkáč. As most sources have only online publications and no searchable databases, identifiers for individuals are not always published. The information on minor law-offences and the dossiers of those currently under investigation are not publicly available. Detailed information on decisions published by the Czech National Bank before 1 January 2009 is not available. In six matches, Mr Tkáč was mentioned as the representative of one of his associated companies in decisions published by the Office for the Protection of Competition of the Czech Republic, allowing the mergers of said companies with other participating firms in respective public procurement processes.

5.6

Media

5.6.1

General

In the due diligence, we have consulted public sources, among which are publications such as press articles. Furthermore, we have consulted several sources via the internet with respect to Mr Tkáč.

67 Given the rate in 2021 68 https://www.motejlekskocdopole.com/patrik-tkac-nevydrzel-zaluje-v-usa-tomase-berku-o-milion-dolaru/

34

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

Mr Tkáč has a high profile in the Czech-language internet and media. He is mostly mentioned as the prominent Slovak businessman, who is the co-founder of investment group J&T.69 70 In our research, we focused on indications of corruption and bribery, amongst others. Some adverse information involving Mr Tkáč was identified and is presented further below and in annex 5 of this report. 5.6.2

Successful start of career

The independent media Biztweet.eu reported that Mr Tkáč began his career during the 1990s in Slovakia and the media speculated that his success was connected to his father Mr Jozef Tkáč, who at the time was the head of the SOE National Development Bank. Reportedly, Mr Jozef Tkáč gave him tips on profitable investment projects, and he allegedly also had support from SOE National Development Bank through loans allowed by Mr Jozef Tkáč. It was reported that one of the first projects was the Creditanstalt investment fund, when in 1996, Mr Tkáč and his partner Mr Jakabovič bought a controlling stake in the fund from Bank Austria. At the same time, the Austrian bank refused to negotiate directly with the two entrepreneurs, who were still students at the time, and the entire transaction took place through a mandate contract with SOE National Development Bank, which sponsored the project with a loan. Stredoeurópska akciová spoločnosť was then created from the Creditanstalt fund, which was considered as the foundation for later development of J&T Group. In the article it was further speculated that the next project was the creation of J&T Banka on the territory of the Czech Republic, which was allegedly a successor of Podnikateľská banka. J&T acquired the majority of its stake reportedly through alleged lobbying of Mr Tkáč’s father.

In his response to this article, Mr Tkáč informed us that ‘J&T Banka is a legal successor of Podnikatelská banka as can be verified in the Czech commercial registry. Shares were duly purchased under the supervision of Czech national bank, as Podnikatelská banka was under its forced administration at that time. Forced administration was caused by its previous owner/management’. In the interview on 23 November 2022, Mr Tkáč elaborated on the background and the political and social context in eastern Europe around the time of the start of his career. Searches conducted at official and public sources revealed no substantiated questions concerning issues related to Mr Tkáč’s start of his career. The information provided and discussed in the interview with Mr Tkáč does not lead to additional questions. 5.6.3

Political exposure

An article published by the independent media Biztweet.eu on an unspecified date reported on Mr Tkáč’s and Mr Jakabovič’s, his business partner in J&T Group, alleged political ties. Reportedly, the president of the Slovak political party SMER – sociálna demokracia and the Minister of Finance of Slovakia from 2006 until 2010 Mr Ján Počiatek had regular meetings with the two businessmen. It was further speculated that Mr Tkáč and Mr Jakabovič were sponsors of SMER for a long time, which allegedly resulted in the government’s willingness under Mr Fico, the Prime Minister of Slovakia from 2006 until 2010 and from 2012 until 2018 to let J&T have significant shares of state-owned enterprises. It was also suggested that Mr Jakabovič and Mr Tkáč also had connections in the Czech Republic, with the former Prime Minister Mr Topolánek, connected to Mr Křetínský as well.71

69 https://zivotopis.financnici.cz/patrik-tkac.php 70 https://www.fxstreet.cz/klicova-slova+patrik-tkac.html 71 https://biztweet.eu/article/571-patrik-tkac-a-ivan-jakabovic-zakladny-kamen-financnych-zralokov

35

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

In our interview, Mr Tkáč explained that he never paid any politicians. The veracity of the allegations in the various articles could not be identified. We found no substantiation in other public sources. 5.6.4

Connections with Russia

In the interview on 23 November 2022, Mr Tkáč provided background information on his views on the geopolitical policy and situation of J&T Banka and other companies in general and the relationships with Russian companies and individuals more specific. He explained that before his marriage he travelled to Russia on many occasions. He disagreed with the suggestions made in various press articles that he has close relations with Russian individuals and companies. 5.6.5

Involvement in bribery investigation

An article published by the Czech news portal Lidovky.cz reported in June 2014 that the Czech anticorruption police started investigating a case of bribery connected with plots in the Turks and Caicos Islands, in which representatives of the Czech-Slovak financial group J&T, including Mr Tkáč, and local politicians, were the suspects. The other individuals involved were Slovak financier Mr Mario Hoffmann (referred to hereinafter as Mr Hoffmann), J&T co-founder Mr Jakabovič, partner Mr Peter Korbačka (referred to hereinafter as Mr Korbačka), as well as former Prime Minister of Turks and Caicos Islands, Mr Michael Misick (referred to hereinafter as Mr Misick).72 According to the same article, the case was supervised by the District Attorney's Office for Prague 1, and according to its spokesperson, Ms Šárka Pokorná, the criminal proceedings were being prepared at the time and it was to be decided whether the suspects would be accused. Reportedly, in 2009, it was further mentioned in the article, that the Government of Turks and Caicos Islands sold land to Mr Hoffmann for a questionably low price, which caused suspicions of potential bribery. According to the text of the opening of the criminal proceedings, Mr Hoffmann provided Turks and Caicos government officials with a bribe, allegedly arranged by J&T Bank. Details remained unspecified.

At the mentioned land, J&T wanted to build a luxury resort worth USD 600 million. In August 2014, J&T published an official statement on its corporate website, stating the investigation into the commission of a criminal offence in the Turks and Caicos Islands against J&T was apparently terminated in 2012. It was further mentioned that on the basis of the agreement between the Governor of the Islands representing the British Crown and other involved parties, a mutual agreement had been reached, whereby J&T and its representatives were cleared of all charges.73 Reportedly, the above-mentioned investigation has been conducted by the Czech authorities, which were asked by the British party to render assistance a few years ago. In the interview, Mr Tkáč explained the background of the case. From the interview and public sources, no further details were identified on the development of the investigation or mentions of Mr Tkáč having any legal charges.

72 https://www.lidovky.cz/byznys/ceska-policie-proveruje-piraty-z-karibiku.A140618_100019_ln_domov_ele 73 https://www.jtfg.com/en/media-servis/1171759-statement-of-jt-banka-regarding-the.html

36

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

6

S U M M A RY

Following your request, we have conducted an integrity due diligence into EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč. In this report, we present the results of the research concerning EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč. The preliminary findings are discussed with them. In conducting this research, we have sought alignment with requirements stated in the various Dutch laws, other legislations and guidelines. In chapter 2 of this report, we have explained the legal and investigative framework and definitions we used for this integrity due diligence. The results based upon the desk research in public sources and the interviews with Mr Tkáč and Mr Křetínský regarding EPH are outlined in chapter 3. In chapter 4, we have presented the findings regarding Mr Křetínský retrieved from information provided by him and from public sources, and in chapter 5 the findings regarding Mr Tkáč. For our findings regarding EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč, we refer to the abovementioned chapters at the beginning of our report. We are at your disposal should you require any further explanation. Yours faithfully, Holland Integrity Group B.V.

F.J. Erkens Managing Partner

37

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

A N N E X 1 – A N OV E RV I E W O F T H E S H A RE H O LD E RS ’ PO S I T I O N S OV E R T H E Y E A RS

38

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

The overview of the shareholders’ positions over the years

7/aug/09 Mutation 31/dec/09 Mutation 31/dec/10 Demerger spin-off 31/dec/11 Mutation 31/dec/12 Mutation 31/dec/13 acquired own shares 31/dec/14 Mutation 31/dec/15 Mutation 31/dec/16 Mutation 31/dec/17 Mutation 31/dec/18 Mutation 31/dec/19 Mutation 31/dec/20 Mutation 31/dec/21

Timeworth Mackarel Khasomia Holdings Biques Enterprises EP Investment EP Investment II EP Corporate Limited Limited Limited Limited Milees Limites S.a.r.l. S.a.r.l. Group a.s. 8.248.461.000 100,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% -8.248.461.000 4.412.584.000 2.206.292.000 2.206.292.000 2.206.292.000 4.412.584.000 2.206.292.000 2.206.292.000 2.206.292.000 40,00% 20,00% 20,00% 20,00% 183.817.800 91.908.900 91.908.900 91.908.900 4.596.401.800 2.298.200.900 2.298.200.900 2.298.200.900 40,00% 20,00% 20,00% 20,00% -1.229.606.600 -614.803.300 -614.803.300 -614.803.300 3.366.795.200 1.683.397.600 1.683.397.600 1.683.397.600 40,00% 20,00% 20,00% 20,00% 673.359.040 4.040.154.240 1.683.397.600 1.683.397.600 1.683.397.600 44,44% 18,52% 18,52% 18,52% 4.040.154.240 1.683.397.600 1.683.397.600 1.683.397.600 44,44% 18,52% 18,52% 18,52% -4.040.154.240 -1.683.397.600 0 1.683.397.600 0 1.683.397.600 0,00% 33,33% 0,00% 33,33% -193.590.724 0 1.489.806.876 0 1.683.397.600 0,00% 29,50% 0,00% 33,33% -193.590.600 193.590.600 0 1.296.216.276 0 1.876.988.200 0,00% 25,67% 0,00% 37,17% -1.296.216.276 -1.876.988.200 0 0 0 0 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

1.661.513.431 1.661.513.431 47,00%

1.873.621.529 53,00%

1.661.513.431 47,00%

1.873.621.529 53,00% -1.873.621.529 0 0 0,00% 0,00%

1.661.513.431 47,00% -1.541.512.431 120.001.000 3,00% -120.001.000 0 0,00%

0 0,00%

0 0,00%

0 0,00%

0 0,00%

0 0,00%

0 0,00%

0 0,00%

0 0,00% 0 0,00%

0 0,00% 0 0,00%

0 0,00% 0 0,00%

0 0,00%

J&T Energy Holding a.s.

0 0,00%

39

Own shares 8.248.461.000 0,00% 2.782.999.000 11.031.460.000 100,00% 459.544.500 11.491.004.500 100,00% -3.074.016.500 8.416.988.000 100,00% 673.359.040 9.090.347.040 100,00% 0 9.090.347.040 100,00% 4.040.154.240 0 4.040.154.240 5.050.192.800 100,00% 0 4.040.154.240 5.050.192.800 100,00% -4.040.154.240 0 0 5.050.192.800 100,00% 1.515.057.840 -1.515.057.840 1.515.057.840 3.535.134.960 100,00% -1.515.057.840 0 3.535.134.960 100,00%

1.683.397.600 1.683.397.600 33,33% 193.590.724 1.876.988.324 37,17% 1.876.988.324 37,17% -3.366.795 1.873.621.529 53,00%

0 0,00%

KUKANA ENTERPRSISES LIMITED

0 2.120.000.000 2.120.000.000 53,00% 120.001.000 2.240.001.000 56,00%

1.759.999.000 1.759.999.000 44,00% -1.759.999.000 0 0,00%

0 1.759.999.000 1.759.999.000 44,00%

0

3.535.134.960 100,00% 464.865.040 4.000.000.000 100,00% 0 4.000.000.000 100,00%

Province Zeeland Report Integrity Due Diligence EPH, Mr Křetínský and Mr Tkáč 8 December 2022

A N N E X 2 - T H E S U M M A RY O F T H E FI N A L D E C I S I O N O F T H E EC A N D T H E P RE S S RE LE A S E

40

C 316/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.10.2012

Summary of Commission Decision of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Case COMP/39.793 — EPH and others) (notified under document C(2012) 1999 final) (Only the English text is authentic)

(2012/C 316/05)

On 28 March 2012, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (1). In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. 1. INTRODUCTION (1) The Decision is addressed to Energetický a průmyslový holding (‘EPH’) and its 100 % subsidiary EP Investment Advisors (‘EPIA’). It imposes a fine on them for refusal to submit to an inspection, an infringement within the meaning of Article 23(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The refusal took the form of a failure to block an e-mail account and of diversion of incoming emails which occurred during the inspection carried out at the premises shared by EPH and EPIA.