Russian gas remains expensive Lithuania – Kommersant

Lithuania failed to achieve in the court of “Gazprom” payments to € 1,4 billion and that she, in her opinion, overpaid for the supply of gas for eight years. Stockholm arbitration court decided that neither of the parties can not prove their claims, and to calculate the potential damage of Vilnius is not possible due to too fuzzy language in the contracts between the two companies. The court’s decision can be on hand to “Gazprom” in considering a similar action on the part of Ukrainian “Naftogaz”.

Stockholm arbitration Lithuania refused, demanding to recover from the “Gazprom” € 1,4 billion overpayment for the supplied gas in the years 2004-2012. “Arbitration does not see any violations in the actions of the Russian company”, – the Minister of Energy of the country Rokas Masiulis said. The arbitration award is not subject to revision. According to the minister, the country is disappointed with the decision, and in the arbitration findings states that none of the parties has not proved their claims, did not provide sufficiently strong arguments and was unable to defend its position.

“Gazprom” in 2004 bought 37% of the Lithuanian Lietuvos dujos (engaged in the import, transit, sale and distribution of gas), and promised to supply gas in the country on “a fair price “but then, on the assessment of Vilnius, in violation of the contract price increased. In October 2012, Lithuania has filed a lawsuit in the Stockholm arbitration, demanding the return of overpaid funds.

“Arbitration asserts that” Gazprom “, supplying gas to Lithuania and managing Lietuvos shares dujos, was in a conflict of interest, – the Ministry of Energy reported Litvy.- Just because the abstract terms of a share purchase agreement Lietuvos dujos difficult to prove breach of a specific contract Court noted that the term “fair value” is too abstract to be able to appreciate. the possible damage. ” In addition, the arbitrators decided that the requirement Vilnius supply gas “at the lowest price” does not make sense. In “Gazprom” are reminded that the Company has successfully completed proceedings against Lithuania on other disputes in the Stockholm arbitration, the Lithuanian courts and EU courts.

The dispute in arbitration with the Lithuanian government was the first in a series of hard conflict “Gazprom” with buyers from the former Soviet Union, where the company has converted to contracts, substantially similar contracts with Western European customers. When in 2010-2011 all customers of “Gazprom” began to insist on the revision of contracts due to the huge increase in oil prices, the Baltic states and Ukraine are in a difficult situation – due to its gas transportation systems unit had other suppliers of gas and could not get the “Gazprom” of the concessions that he eventually went to Western Europe. Therefore, in 2014, Lithuania has launched a terminal for receiving liquefied natural gas, and Ukraine has begun Reverse supply of the EU. At the same time, both countries insist that the prices of contracts with “Gazprom” were inflated because in Western Europe gas was cheaper, although this gas neither Lithuania nor Ukraine had the opportunity.

Senior Associate of the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright Andrei Panov explains that the challenge SCC award Lithuania is in the Swedish Court of Appeal at the place of the judgment: “It is very narrow list of grounds for cancellation, for example, procedural irregularities, but I strongly doubt that the arbitration of such violations committed. ” Lawyer notes that the verdict can improve the “Gazprom” position in the proceedings with “Naftogaz Ukraine” in the same Stockholm arbitration. Companies are judged in June 2014, Ukraine wants to return (about $ 30 billion) of overpayment for gas in 2010, while “Gazprom” requires full payment of the selected volumes in 2014 and the condition take-or-pay ($ 31,75 billion). According to “Kommersant”, the basic conditions of the contracts with Lithuania and Ukraine (except for the specific parameters of the formula prices) are almost identical, they signed under Swedish law. “If the conditions of contracts of” Gazprom “with Lithuania and Ukraine in terms of fair value are the same, the decision of the Stockholm Arbitration strengthens the position of” Gazprom “and gives him a chance to fend off similar claims”, – said Mr. Panov. But, he says, even the referees in the same arbitration institution is not obliged to follow the decision in a similar case, so you can not completely predict the outcome of the Ukrainian dispute.

Olga Mordyushenko Anna Zanin