Gazprom scrapped plans to resume gas flows to Ukraine last week after a Stockholm arbitration court ruled that it should pay US$2.56 billion in compensation in the ongoing row over supplies and transit fees.
Ukraine was subsequently forced to buy gas from the west at inflated prices.
Gazprom is appealing against the ruling although Ukraine has already moved to seize Gazprom property and shares under separate rulings using Kiev’s anti-monopoly legislation.
The Ukrainian foreign ministry also ordered its embassies to find Gazprom’s global assets to potentially pursue legal action overseas to seize them.
“In this situation with Gazprom, Ukraine’s position should be tough and consistent,” Ukraine Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman said.
He said the formation of a package of claims by Ukraine’s state-run gas utility, Naftogaz, against its Russian counterpart in the Stockholm court in 2014 had resulted in a number of decisions by anti-monopoly bodies in the European Union and Ukraine on its violation of the monopoly legislation. In January 2016, Kiev’s Anti-Monopoly Committee imposed a fine of almost US$3.3 billion on Gazprom for abuse of its position in Ukraine’s natural gas market.
The amount has doubled in a year after an unsuccessful Gazprom challenge.
“Gazprom must comply with the verdict of the Stockholm arbitration court and the demands of Ukraine’s anti-monopoly agencies and the decisions of Ukrainian courts… For failing to fulfil its obligations, the Russian monopolist must bear strict responsibility.”
Gazprom’s seized assets in Ukraine will probably fail to match the compensation bill as bilateral relations between the former allies are further damaged.
Ukrainian deputy foreign minister Elena Zerkal said last week that embassies had “already been instructed to conduct a fundamental analysis: to check all registries and all open databases to find out what Gazprom has and where”.
Kremlin-controlled Gazprom dismissed the Stockholm verdict as politically motivated, and complained that it was being expected to pay for Ukraine’s economic problems.
Energy rows in 2006 and 2009 between Russia and Ukraine affected supplies to the EU, promoting Europe to look for alternative supply routes.
“Gas supply and transit must never be a political weapon. We expect Gazprom to supply gas to Ukraine’s transit pipeline per Stockholm arbitration decision,” tweeted US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauer last week.
“Russia should prove it is a reliable gas supplier, [Gazprom] failed in its attempt to portray Ukraine [as an] unreliable transit partners”.
Ukraine was subsequently forced to buy gas from the west at inflated prices.
Gazprom is appealing against the ruling although Ukraine has already moved to seize Gazprom property and shares under separate rulings using Kiev’s anti-monopoly legislation.
The Ukrainian foreign ministry also ordered its embassies to find Gazprom’s global assets to potentially pursue legal action overseas to seize them.
“In this situation with Gazprom, Ukraine’s position should be tough and consistent,” Ukraine Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman said.
He said the formation of a package of claims by Ukraine’s state-run gas utility, Naftogaz, against its Russian counterpart in the Stockholm court in 2014 had resulted in a number of decisions by anti-monopoly bodies in the European Union and Ukraine on its violation of the monopoly legislation. In January 2016, Kiev’s Anti-Monopoly Committee imposed a fine of almost US$3.3 billion on Gazprom for abuse of its position in Ukraine’s natural gas market.
The amount has doubled in a year after an unsuccessful Gazprom challenge.
“Gazprom must comply with the verdict of the Stockholm arbitration court and the demands of Ukraine’s anti-monopoly agencies and the decisions of Ukrainian courts… For failing to fulfil its obligations, the Russian monopolist must bear strict responsibility.”
Gazprom’s seized assets in Ukraine will probably fail to match the compensation bill as bilateral relations between the former allies are further damaged.
Ukrainian deputy foreign minister Elena Zerkal said last week that embassies had “already been instructed to conduct a fundamental analysis: to check all registries and all open databases to find out what Gazprom has and where”.
Kremlin-controlled Gazprom dismissed the Stockholm verdict as politically motivated, and complained that it was being expected to pay for Ukraine’s economic problems.
Energy rows in 2006 and 2009 between Russia and Ukraine affected supplies to the EU, promoting Europe to look for alternative supply routes.
“Gas supply and transit must never be a political weapon. We expect Gazprom to supply gas to Ukraine’s transit pipeline per Stockholm arbitration decision,” tweeted US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauer last week.
“Russia should prove it is a reliable gas supplier, [Gazprom] failed in its attempt to portray Ukraine [as an] unreliable transit partners”.
Gazprom is investing heavily in non-Ukrainian pipelines. Picture credit: YouTube
