As an international publicly traded company, it is MOL’s duty to be fully transparent with our stakeholders. With this in mind, and to convey MOL’s perspective on the INA-related issues that have generated considerable media attention to date, we have launched this dedicated Web page www.molincroatia.com.
MOL is one of the largest foreign investors in Croatia. We have played an active role in INA’s development since 2003; we became the largest shareholder through investing more than USD 1.8 bn and saved it from bankruptcy. This investment has significantly benefited Croatia's economy and enhanced its energy security, proved by a number of examples.
In October 2008, MOL became the largest shareholder in INA and subsequently obtained the management control rights over the company. All MOL’s moves regarding INA were made possible by the 2002 INA Privatization Act, a law requested by the International Monetary Fund and enacted under then Prime Minister Ivica Račan.
Since 2009, MOL has been operating in an increasingly challenging environment in Croatia. On the one hand, this was caused by the economic downturn in the whole region, on the other hand this was the result of an unfriendly investment climate and the unpredictable regulatory system in the country. Despite these challenges, we have repeatedly requested to accelerate the negotiations with the Government of Croatia to reach an understanding that will enable INA to flourish and create value for its shareholders.
We believe that this website will help you understand even better the current situation, our position and our commitment to a constructive solution.
The content of this site will be regularly updated to keep all our stakeholders informed of the developments regarding MOL and INA. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact us.
MOL Group expressed utter disappointment at the verdict of the Zagreb County Court concerning the Sanader-case.
The company is disappointed as the existing decisions of the Hungarian authorities and those of the UN Tribunal in Geneva concluded that there was no wrongdoing by any MOL Group officer.
MOL still insists that the previous arguments that vindicated the company concerning any suggestion of improper business conduct be upheld and will therefore defend against any allegations of illegal practices by any and all measures.
The Chairman and CEO continues to have the full support and confidence of the MOL Group boards. MOL’s strategy towards INA remains unaffected a fact proven by the approval of a USD 600 mn investment decision on the Residue Upgrade project in Rijeka.
Earlier decisions in the Sanader-case
2011: Responding to the Croatian allegations, the Central Bureau of Investigation of the Hungarian Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation against an unknown perpetrator on suspicion of the felony of corruption intended for dereliction of duty in international relations. The Chief Prosecutor’s Office concluded that no felony had been perpetrated in the interest of and by the executives of MOL, and therefore discontinued the investigation in the lack of any criminal offence.
2015: The Croatian Constitutional Court repealed the ruling passed down in the criminal case against former Croatian prime minister Ivo Sanader, which had also concluded that the former prime minister accepted a graft in connection with INA. The court noted multiple gross procedural errors and obligated the Zagreb County Court to start the court proceeding over.
2016: MOL received the Final Award in the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on Trade Law) arbitration against the Republic of Croatia by which the Tribunal dismissed all Croatian claims. Concerning bribery allegations, the Tribunal explicitly concluded that all alleged bribery fails.
2018: The Budapest Court of Justice refused to execute European Arrest Warrant for Zsolt Hernádi issued by the Croatian authorities with the explanation whereby “in case the defendant is handed over, there is a risk that his right to a fair hearing would be infringed upon, and the impartial consideration of the case could not be ensured.