123
31. Off-balance sheet commitments
Less than
1-5
More than
Total
In millions of EUR
Years
5 Years
Guarantees to banks for loans (by third parties)
387
188
182
17
Other guarantees
138
27
94
17
116
Guarantees
525
215
276
34
514
Lease operational lease commitments
281
48
127
106
242
Property, plant and equipment ordered
64
64
-
-
127
Raw materials purchase contracts
621
71
8
542
610
Other off-balance sheet obligations
460
186
175
99
267
Off-balance sheet obligations
1,426
369
310
747
1,246
Committed bank facilities
2,120
77
2,043
2,411
teineken leases buildings, cars and equipment.
During the year ended 31 December 2007 €147 million (2006: €133 million) was recognised
s an expense in the income statement in respect of operating leases and rent.
Other off-balance sheet obligations mainly include rental, service and sponsorship contracts.
ommitted bank facilities are credit facilities on which commitment fee is paid as compensation for the
bank's requirement to reserve capital. The bank is obliged to provide the facility under the terms and
onditions of the agreement.
Of the total guarantees, off-balance sheet obligations and committed bank facilities, an amount of
288 million is related to joint ventures.
2. Contingencies
he Netherlands
leineken is involved in an antitrust case initiated by the European Commission for alleged violations of
he EU competition laws. By decision of 18 April 2007 the European Commission stated that Heineken,
nd other brewers operating in the Netherlands, restricted competition in the Dutch market during the
period 1996-1999. This decision follows an investigation by the European Commission that commenced
n March 2000. Heineken fully cooperated with the authorities in this investigation. As a result of its
lecision, the European Commission has imposed a fine on Heineken of €219 million.
\ll cartel decisions by the European Commission may be appealed against before the European Court of
irst Instance and then before the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg. These
wo courts are empowered to annul decisions in whole or in part and to reduce or increase fines, where
his is deemed appropriate.
Dn 4 July 2007 Heineken filed an appeal with the European Court of First Instance against the decision of
he European Commission as Heineken disagrees with the findings of the European Commission. Pending
appeal, Heineken was obliged to pay the fine to the European Commission. This imposed fine is treated
3S an expense in our 2007 annual report.
fhe European Commission filed its defence on 22 November 2007. Heineken will file its statement of
eply in March 2008. After the European Commission will have filed its reply by rejoinder, Heineken is
entitled to request for oral pleadings before the Court. A final decision by the European Court is
expected thereafter.
Heineken N.V. Annual Report 2007