Russian Interior Ministry to control 13 more new psychotropics, drug-containing plantSociety & Culture July 24, 2:54
MAKS-2017 airshow yields contracts to over $6bln - Russian ministry of industry and tradeBusiness & Economy July 23, 23:48
Russian consumer rights watchdog chief names cities with highest HIV ratesSociety & Culture July 23, 21:41
Serbian filmmaker Kustirica says Crimea’s reunification with Russia is natural processSociety & Culture July 23, 21:40
Israeli embassy in Amman attacked by terrorists, some people wounded - TVWorld July 23, 21:35
Boxing Day on Red Square sets new Guinness recordSport July 23, 8:33
Joseph Dunford says Russia most military capable country of those posing threat to USWorld July 23, 4:57
Russia’s US envoy Kislyak steps down, his deputy to act as Charg d'Affaires ad interimRussian Politics & Diplomacy July 23, 1:33
Putin greets KamAZ-Master team - winner of Silk Way RallySport July 22, 15:20
KIEV, December 5. /TASS/. The economic court of Kiev has sustained the claim of the Ukrainian Anti-Monopoly Committee (UAMC) to Russia’s gas producer Gazprom on exacting a $3.4 bln fine and penalties in the same amount to the full extent, the regulator’s representative said following the court hearing on Monday.
"The court fully sustained the claim," he said, adding that the decision concerns both the principal sum of the fine amounting to $3.4 bln and penalties in the same amount.
On October 5, UAMC filed a lawsuit to the economic court of Kiev to oblige Gazprom to pay the fine and the penalty. In January, UAMC fined Gazprom 85.966 billion hryvnia (about $3.4 billion) "for the abuse of the monopoly position" on the market of natural gas transit through the Ukrainian gas transportation system in 2009-2015. The notice of the decision taken by the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine was sent to Gazprom on February 12.
The date of fulfilment of the demand expired on May 4. Gazprom disputed the decision of UAMC but the court rejected the appeal. All higher courts of Ukraine refused to uphold Gazprom’s complaint to declare the return of the appeal as illegal.