The EU’s Proceedings Against Gazprom and Their Repercussions on EU Competition Law

Abstract

Avrupa Birliği, Rusya Federasyonu’nun sahibi olduğu ve üye devletler nezdindeki pek çok enerji piyasasında aktif olan enerji devi Gazprom şirketini, siyasi dış politikasının bir parçası olarak kullanmasından dolayı rahatsızlık duymaktadır. AB Komisyonu 4 Eylül 2012 tarihinde, bu çerçevede Gazprom’a karşı, şirketin pek çok enerji piyasasındaki hakim durumunu, petrol fiyatı endekslemesi, al-yada-öde kaydı, altyapılara üçüncü kişilerin ulaşım hakkının engellenmesi gibi eylemler yoluyla kötüye kullandığı gerekçesiyle inceleme başlatmıştır. Rus devleti buna karşı olarak kısıtlayıcı düzenlemeler yoluyla, Gazprom’un ve alt şirketlerinin, Komisyon kararı doğrultusunda hareket etmelerini engellemeye çalışmaktadır. Komisyonun başlattığı inceleme AB rekabet hukuku kurallarının, merkezi AB sınırları dışında olan (St. Petersburg) Gazprom şirketinin yine AB sınırları dışındaki eylemlerine karşı uygulanmasını öngörmekte olup, bu çerçevede AB hukukunun sınır-aşırı uygulanmasını gerektirmektedir. Rusya’nın kısıtlayıcı düzenlemeleri ise karışmazlık ilkesinin savunma aşamasında Gazprom tarafından ileri sürülmesinin planlandığını göstermektedir. Komisyon, 24 Mayıs, 2018 tarihinde Gazprom’a yönelik bazı yükümlüler getirdiğini açıklamıştır ve henüz Gazprom tarafından bu karar aleyhine Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı’nda herhangi bir iptal davası açılmamıştır. Fakat, tarafların karar öncesine kadar yaptıkları tartışmalar, AB rekabet hukukunun devlet politikası niteliğindeki şirket eylemlerine karşı sınır-aşırı uygulanması hakkında ortaya çıkan önemli hukuki çıkarımlar açısından çok önemlidir. (The European Union is concerned with the Russian policy of using natural gas resources as an instrument of expanding its influence over the EU Member States through the state-owned giant Gazprom, a super dominant energy company, operating in the EU with assets in upstream, midstream and downstream energy markets. On 4 September, 2012, the European Commission announced that it has initiated proceedings against Gazprom on the grounds that the Russian giant abused its dominant position in several EU energy markets through practices such as oil price indexation, take-or-pay clauses, refusing third party access rights, etc.. In response, Russian state enacted blocking legislations to prevent Gazprom and its subsidiaries in the EU from complying with the enforcement decisions that would be taken by the Commission. The Commission’s proceedings constituted an extraterritorial application of EU competition law to certain practices perpetrated by Gazprom in its domicile, St. Petersburg, Russia. Blocking legislations indicated that the Russian Government sought to provide to Gazprom, a legal basis, the principle of non-interference, the company would rely on in dismissing the enforcement decisions taken by the Commission. On 24 May, 2018, the Commission imposed binding obligations on Gazprom to ensure, inter alia, that natural gas provided by the Russian giant was priced at competitive levels through employing indices established in the EU. Even though the Commission’s decision was not challenged by Gazprom before the EU courts, the arguments raised by the parties prior to the decision had serious legal implications as to the extraterritorial application of EU competition law to market practices that were part of a political agenda.)

Keywords

• rekabet hukuku
• gazprom
• enerji piyasaları
• avrupa birliği hukuku

References

1. Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC [2009] OJ L211/55.
2. Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC [2009] OJ L211/94 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on Functioning of European Union [2008] OJ C326/47.
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 OJ L 1, 04.01.2003.
4. Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) [2004] OJ L24/1.
5. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, 55 U.N.T.S. 194.
6. Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 OJ L211/15.
7. Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 OJ L211/36.
8. Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Company Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain), 1970 I.C.J. GL No.50 (Feb.5).

9. Case 48/69, ICI v. Commission (Dyestuffs) [1972] ECR 619. Cases 89, 104, 114, 116, 117, and 125-129/85, A. Ahlström Oy v. Commission [1988] ECR 5193.
10. Case 413/14 P, Intel Corp. v European Comm’n, ECLI:EU:C:2017:632.
11. Case T-102/96, Gencor Ltd v Commission [1999] ECR II-753.
12. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 US 764, 113 S. Ct 2891 (1993).
13. S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (Sept. 7).
14. Timberlane Lumber Co v. Bank of America, 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1976).
15. EDP/ENI/GDP (Case COMP/M.3440) Commission Decision 2005/801/EC, [2005] OJ L302/69.
16. ENI (Case COMP/39.315) Commission Decision 29/12/2010. E.ON/MOL (Case COMP/M.3696) Commission Decision 2006/622/EC OJ L253/20.
17. OMV (Case COMP/37.811) [2003] Commission Press Release IP/03/1345.
18. RWE/Essent (Case COMP/M.5467) Commission Decision 23/06/2009 OJ C222/1.
19. Chie Sato, Extraterritorial Application of EU Competition Law –Is It Possible for Japanese Companies to Steer Clear of EU Competition Law? (2010) Journal of Political Science and Sociology, No. 11, 23-47.
20. Christopher Jones (ed), ‘The Internal Energy Market: The Third Liberalisation Package’, (Claeys & Casteels, 3rd ed., 2014).
21. Commission staff working document–Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Directive 2004/67/EC. Assessment report of directive 2004/67/EC on security of gas supply {COM(2009) 363}" (PDF). European Commission. 16 July 2009.
22. European Commission Press Release, ‘Antitrust: Commission opens proceedings against Gazprom’, (4 September 2012) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-937_en.htm ((last accessed on 27/09/2020)).
23. European Commission, ‘Quarterly Report on European Gas Markets’, 8/1, [2015].
24. Gerber D., ‘Constitutionalizing the Economy: German Neo-liberalism, Competition Law and the ‘New Europe’ (1994) 42 American Journal of Comparative Law 25.
25. Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings [2009] O.J. C45/7.
26. Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (2006/C 210/02).
27. Guzman A.T. & Pauwleyn J.H.B., International Trade Law (Aspen Pub., 2009).
28. Hale B., GE-Honeywell: Hope Lives on, (22 June, 2001) BBC News Online, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1402399.stm, (last accessed in 02.09.2020).
29. Jones A. & Sufrin B., EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, (5th ed. 2014).
30. Jones A. & Sufrin B., EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, (7th ed. 2019).
31. Konoplyanik A. A., "Gas Transit in Eurasia: Transit Issues between Russia and the European Union and the Role of the Energy Charter," (2009), Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 27, 445-486.
32. Liesen R., "Transit under the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty," (1999) J. Energy & Nat. Resources L., 17, 56-73.
33. Martyniszyn M., ‘Export Cartels: Is it Legal to Target your Neighbour? Analysis in Light of Recent Case Law’ (2012), Journal of International Economic Law, 15/1, 181-222.
34. Martyniszyn, M. ‘Legislation Blocking Antitrust Investigations and the September 2012 Russian Executive Order’, (2014), Journal of World Competition, 37(1), 103-120.
35. Olcott M.B., “Vladimir Putin and the Geopolitics of Oil” The Energy Dimension in Russian Global Strategy, (Houston: The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, 2004).
36. Patterson D. E. & Shapiro C., ‘Transatlantic Divergence in GE/Honeywell: Causes and Lessons’, (2001), Antitrust, 18.
37. Pirani S., Stern J., & Yafimava K.,, ‘The Russo-Ukrainian gas dispute of January 2009: a comprehensive assessment’ (2009) Oxford Institute for Energy Studies Oxford.
38. Riley A., “Commission v. Gazprom: The Antitrust Clash of the Decade”, in CEPS Policy Briefs, No. 285 (31 October 2012), p. 8.
39. Ryngaert C., ‘Jurisdiction in International Law’, (Oxford University Press, 2008).
40. Sartori N., ‘The European Commission vs. Gazprom: An Issue of Fair Competition or a Foreign Policy Quarrel?’, (2013), IAI Working Papers 13/03.
41. Stern J. & Yafimava K., The EU Competition Investigation of Gazprom’s Sales in Central and Eastern Europe: A Detailed Analysis of the Commitments and the Way Forward, (OIES 2017). Walde T. W. & Gunst A. J., "International energy trade and access to energy networks," (2002), Journal of World Trade, 36: 191-218.
42. Antitrust: Commission opens proceedings against Gazprom, 4 September, 2012. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-937_en.htm, (last accessed on 27/09/2020).
43. Antitrust: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Gazprom for alleged abuse of dominance on Central and Eastern European gas supply markets, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4828_en.htm (last accessed 27/09/2020).
44. Belton C., Barker A., & Chaffin J., “Kremlin Shield from EU Probe”, The Financial Times, (11 September 2012). https://www.ft.com/content/fcdbe0e4-fc31-11e1-ac0f-00144feabdc0, (last accessed on 27/09/2020). Euractive, ‘Cancellation of South Stream makes economic sense’, (12 December, 2014) http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/cancellation-south-stream-project-makes-economic-sense-310788, (last accessed on 27/09/2020).
45. Euractiv, ‘Russia’s Natural Gas Dilemma’ (11 April 2012), http://www.euractiv.com/energy/russias-natural-gas-dilemma-analysis-512092 (last accessed on 27/09/2020).
46. European Commission opens proceedings against Gazprom, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-937_en.htm (last accessed on 27/09/2020).
47. European Commission press release, ‘Commission imposes fine of €1.06 bn on Intel for abuse of dominant position; orders Intel to cease illegal practices’ (13 May 2009) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-09-745_en.htm (last accessed on 27/09/2020).
48. European Commission press release,‘Statement by Commissioner Vestager on sending a Statement of Objections to Gazprom’(22/04/2015),http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-15-4834_en.htm, (last accessed on 27/09/2020).
49. Executive order of the President of the Russian Federation No 1285 of 11 September 2012 on Measures to Protect Russian Federation Interests in Russian Legal Entities’ Foreign Economic Activities, see http://eng.news.kremlin.ru/news/4401, (last accessed on 27/09/2020).
50. Gazprom, ‘Statement of OAO “Gazprom” with respect to the adoption of “statement of objections” by the European Commission under the antitrust investigation’ (22 April 2015), http://www.gazprom.com/press/news/2015/april/article224444/, (last accessed on 27/09/2020).
51. How Russian energy giant Gazprom lost $300bn’ (7 August 2015) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/07/gazprom-oil-company-share-price-collapse (last accessed on 27/09/2020).
52. OAO Gazprom, Annual Report 2013, https://www.gazprom.com/investors/disclosure/reports/2013/ (last accessed on 27/09/2020). Politico, ‘No easy answer in Commission-Gazprom fight’ (22 April 2015) http://www.politico.eu/article/no-easy-answer-in-commission-gazprom-fight/ (last accessed on 27/09/2020).