The Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine appealed to the national Ministry of justice to seize in the country, the property and assets of “Gazprom” in the framework of the case on the penalty of $6,35 billion
The Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) has asked the Department of the public Executive service of the Ministry of justice to seize property and assets of “Gazprom” in the country in the case of the penalty on 171.9 billion hryvnia ($of 6.356 billion). This should be the message of the press service, published on the official website of the Ukrainian regulator.
The head of Department Yury Terentyev on his page in Facebook published a copy of the application. In the text of the document notes that the AMC made it on the basis of earlier decisions and requires the courts to seize the property and assets of “Gazprom” in Ukraine and “to announce a ban on its alienation.”
In a press-service “Gazprom” in conversation with RBC did not comment on this topic.
In late February, the Appellate economic court of Kiev rejected the appeal of “Gazprom” which the Russian company demanded to cancel delivered in December 2016, the decision of the city Economic court about forcible recovery of a fine in the amount of 171.9 billion hryvnia ($of 6.356 billion). The AMC then the company was accused of abuse of monopoly position in the Ukrainian market of gas transit between 2009 and 2015.
According to Terentyev, “Gazprom” has violated the terms of the contract with “Naftogaz” and ignored appeals to change the terms of cooperation on economically justified and mutually beneficial. The head of the ACU ranked as the violations, a sharp decline in volume of gas (100 billion cubic meters under the contract up to 62 billion cubic meters in 2014), which “Gazprom” pumps to Europe via the territory of Ukraine. Their losses from the fall in transit volumes, “Naftogaz of Ukraine” is estimated at $6 billion.
In early 2016, the AMCU fined “Gazprom” on these charges on 86,86 billion hryvnia ($3.2 billion). To pay a penalty under the charges, the company refused and filed a complaint in the courts, however, overturn the decision failed.