Gazprom and the EU are Reaching a Deal - A Pyrrhic Victory for Central and Eastern Europe?
By Gijs Kreeft, PhD researcher at the Groningen Centre
of Energy Law
From the moment of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, all stakeholders will have seven weeks to submit their views before the Commission will make a final decision. The commitment proposal of Gazprom may be found here. Similar to the concerns in the Statement of Objections by the Commission, it can be divided into three themes that relate to the free flow of gas. pricing and conditionality. The proposed commitments include:
Five and a half years after raiding
Gazprom’s offices, the competition authorities of the European Union, namely
Margrethe Vestager (Commissioner in charge of competition policy) announced on 13th March that a deal with the
Russian state-owned energy giant in an antitrust investigation was reached. The
deal seems to usher in an era of détente between Gazprom and the European
Commission and may constitute a next step towards the approval of the Nord Stream
2 pipeline project by the Commission later this year.
Antitrust
Probe and Statement of Objections
Based on the evidence gathered
during the raids in September 2011, the Commission initiated formal proceedings
against Gazprom in August 2012. The investigation which followed was aimed at
assessing whether or not Gazprom violated the prohibition on the abuse of
market position, according to article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union (TFEU). According to the Commission, the dependence of
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary and
Slovakia on Gazprom for more than fifty (and in one case one hundred) percent
of their gas supply enabled Gazprom to frustrate the development of competitive
gas markets in Central and Eastern Europe. After three years of investigating
suspected exclusionary behaviour by Gazprom, the Commission issued a Statement
of Objections in April 2015.[1] This Statement of
Objections lists the preliminary findings and concerns of the Commission to
which the addressee, Gazprom, can respond through writing and/or by requesting an
oral hearing.
The
Commission centred its preliminary conclusions on abuse of power by Gazprom
around three themes.[2] The first theme concerns
the hindrance of cross-border sales in gas. By leveraging their position as
dominant gas supplier, Gazprom forced territorial restrictions into the supply
agreements with Central and Eastern European states. These included export ban
clauses and destination clauses, both aiming to prevent the re-sale of gas by
the importing states. The second category of allegations are brought under the
headline ‘unfair pricing policy’. Instead of allowing the price of gas to
fluctuate in the market, the Commission accuses Gazprom of ‘pegging’ the price
of gas to oil products. Although such oil indexation is not illegal in itself, the
preliminary finding of the Commission is that the formulas used by Gazprom to
determine the individual price levels per country lacked competitive benchmarks
and, thereby, unfairly favoured Gazprom over its customers in Bulgaria,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. The third category of objections targets
the alleged practice by Gazprom of making gas supply conditional upon
infrastructure-related commitments from wholesalers. As an example the
Commission refers to the practice by Gazprom in Poland where it made gas supply
conditional on control over investment decisions concerning the Yamal-Europe
transit pipelines.
The Art
of the Deal
On
March 13 of this year, Commissioner Vestager announced that she had received
commitments from Gazprom in response to the concerns expressed in the Statement
of Objections. She expressed: `We believe that Gazprom`s commitments will enable the free flow of gas in Central and Eastern Europe at competitive prices. They adress our competition concerns and provide for a forward looking solution in line with the EU rules. (...) We now want to hear the views of customers and stakeholders and will carefully consider them before taking action.`From the moment of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, all stakeholders will have seven weeks to submit their views before the Commission will make a final decision. The commitment proposal of Gazprom may be found here. Similar to the concerns in the Statement of Objections by the Commission, it can be divided into three themes that relate to the free flow of gas. pricing and conditionality. The proposed commitments include:
- Lifting of contractual restrictions for the export and re-sale of gas;
- More access to gas infrastructure for customers who want to deliver gas to the Baltic States and Bulgaria;
- The introduction of competitive benchmarks into price review clauses;
- Gazprom will drop its claim for damages against Bulgaria following the termination of the South Stream project.
Commitment
Decisions: Pragmatism versus Legitimacy
If, in an antitrust case, the Commission concludes that the entity under
investigation violated EU competition law, it has the choice of taking an
infringement decision under Article 7 of Regulation 1/2003 or an commitment
decision under Article 9 of the same Regulation.[3] A
decision under Article 7 is a formal finding of a violation and allows for behavioural
and structural remedies such as fines. A commitment decision under Article 7 does,
by contrast, not lead to a formal finding of guilt and the imposition of
remedies, but makes binding upon the undertaking any voluntary commitments it
has offered to the Commission in response to the expressed concerns by the
latter in the Statement of Objections. In the event that an undertaking,
subsequent to the commitment decision by the Commission, is found to be in
breach of its commitments, the Commission has the possibility to impose a fine
of up to 10 percent of the undertaking’s worldwide turnover. Such a fine may be
imposed without the necessity of a separate infringement decision under Article
9. See for a highly recommended
review of the Commission’s practice regarding commitment decisions: Dunne, N.
(2014), ‘Commitment Decisions in EU Competition Law’, Journal of Competition Law and Economics 10(2), pp. 399-444.
The commitment procedure offers
the Commission an effective and pragmatic tool for resolving market failures
which are inadequately addressed by existing regulation. It allows the
Commission to enter into a constructive dialogue with an undertaking in order
to address past competition concerns while emphasizing to the Member States how
the commitments contribute to better functioning markets in the future. This
forward looking character of commitment decisions is, however, also its
weakness. By proposing commitments, an undertaking aims to escape the
imposition of a fine under an infringement decision and the determination of
guilt. Consequently, the risk is that a too bureaucratic approach by the Commission,
instead of a more administrative and judicial approach by taking an
infringement decision, affects the legitimacy of the decision in the eyes of
those who have been disadvantaged in the past. Furthermore, the commitment
procedure allows for political considerations to get the better of retribution.
This risk also seems to be acknowledged by Commissioner Vestager who stated: “You have to keep the law enforcement clear
of politics”.[4]
The
deal between Gazprom and the Commission already attracted criticism from representatives
of Central and Eastern European countries. Petras Austrevicius, a Lithuanian
Member of the European Parliament and member of the ALDE Liberal group, asked
the question: “but how about the past
time period, when Gazprom was simply earning dozens of billions, if not
hundreds of billions, using its monopoly on the gas markets?”[5]
Nord
Stream 2
It is not unlikely that, besides
the threat of a fine, Gazprom was willing to address the concerns by the
Commission with the upcoming decision on the Nord Stream 2 in mind. Although
according to a report by the Russia
Institute of King’s College London the Nord Stream 2 pipeline will “enhance the liquidity of Central European
gas hubs in EU trading”, countries in the region fear the opposite. They are
concerned that the pipeline will increase the dependency on Russian gas and
prefer an European security of supply strategy aimed at a diversification of
supply.
Shortly after the
Commission announced the intended settlement with Gazprom in the antitrust
probe, officials working at the Commission told the news website EURACTIV.com
that it was ‘highly likely` that the
pipeline project will be approved.[6] The lingering question is
then whether the intended commitment decision by the Commission is not part of
a larger geopolitical choreography between Russia, Gazprom and the Commission.
If this is, indeed, the case, commitments of Gazprom may be hailed by the
Central and European countries as a pyrrhic victory.
[1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4828_en.htm.
[2]
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4829_en.htm.
[3] Council
Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of
the Treaty.
[4] See Financial Times
article of 13 March 2017: https://www.ft.com/content/575f8d2e-07f2-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43.
[5] http://www.politico.eu/article/gazprom-vestager-commission-gas-deal-news-antitrust-poland-russia/?utm_content=buffere848f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer.
[6] https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eu-commission-leaning-towards-nord-stream-2-approval/.
Comments
Post a Comment