• Natural Gas News

    GGP: No Fines For Gazprom's Monopolistic Practices In Central Europe?

Summary

The statements, opinions and data contained in the content published in Global Gas Perspectives are solely those of the individual authors and...

by: Agata Łoskot-Strachota and Szymon Kardaś

Posted in:

Global Gas Perspectives

GGP: No Fines For Gazprom's Monopolistic Practices In Central Europe?

The statements, opinions and data contained in the content published in Global Gas Perspectives are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s) of Natural Gas World.

Originally published by OSW March 15 2017

On 13 March, after five years of antitrust proceedings against Gazprom, the EU’s commissioner for competition Margrethe Vestager announced that the European Commission (EC) was ready to settle the case. The Russian gas company was accused of abusing its dominant position on the markets of Central and South-Eastern European (CEE) countries. Despite the ongoing market test examining the consequences of such a solution before a final decision by the EC, the conclusion of proceedings with a settlement is very likely. This would mean no formal recognition of Gazprom’s infringement of competition rules. The Russian company would avoid also any fines, despite having been charged with abuse of its dominant position and tangible losses incurred by the participants on the Central European gas market.

The commitments submitted by Gazprom would enable the more rapid adaptation of its business practices in CEE to those already widely used by the company in Western Europe. This would above all remove the still existing contractual barriers which hinder the free flow of gas and make possible the price discrimination against CEE clients. In addition, Gazprom has committed itself to specific steps improving the situation of the most isolated markets in the region (Bulgaria and the Baltic states).

Gazprom’s readiness to commit to changing its practices is largely related to the changes on the EU gas market and its regulation, as well as to the diversification and integration projects implemented in the region. Gazprom’s commitments thus seem to fit into the company’s strategy, modified in recent years, of defending its market share in Europe. It is likely that Gazprom would have implemented at least some of the changes anyway (as it has already started to do), no matter what the outcome of the antitrust proceedings would have been. Consequently, the amicable conclusion of the proceedings would mostly mean the amendment of Gazprom’s ‘old’ practices, which had anyway been undergoing modifications in recent years. However, such a conclusion would not in any way relate to the new challenges connected to Gazprom’s more aggressive market game in the EU, as well as its continuing dominance on the CEE European markets (and to the Nord Stream 2 project, among other factors).

The antitrust proceedings

After the antitrust investigation concluded in spring 2015, the European Commission accused the Russian group (within the framework of the so-called written statement of objections) of abusing its dominant position and employing monopolistic practices in the CEE countries. In accordance with procedure, Gazprom gave a written response to the allegations as early as September 2015; it sent a preliminary list of the commitments it was prepared to undertake in connection with the allegations which the EC had brought against it. On 14 February 2017, after nearly a year and a half of negotiations, Gazprom sent the final version of its commitments. The EC accepted them on a preliminary basis, finding that they correctly addressed its objections, and would contribute to improving the competitiveness and liquidity of the gas markets in the CEE countries covered by the investigation. Thereupon the EC launched the market test phase of Gazprom’s commitments; this consists of assessing the potential market effects of the possible implementation of the commitments made by the company which has been accused of monopolistic practices.

For full article visit OSW.

 
The statements, opinions and data contained in the content published in Global Gas Perspectives are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s) of Natural Gas World.