When it comes to who controls Europe, the answer is simple - hint: it is not Goldman Sachs via its puppets Mario Monti or Mario Draghi. Nor is it Angela Merkel. No - the entity in charge of the continent of 300+ million is the nation-corporation known as Gazpromia, which also happens to be is the holding company of the new and somewhat improved USSR, aka Russia. Why? Because if Gazpromia decided to play the vengeful god role it is known to embrace now and then, it could simply shut down the gas pipeline to Europe and millions of people would realize that heating in deep subzero temperatures is far, far more important than having a (un)stable currency or wheelbarrows full of money. As such, it is always better to let sleeping gods lie. Oddly enough, Europe decided to not do that, and moments ago the WSJ and BBG reported that the EU has decided to bite the hand that warms it and has launched an antrust case against Gazprom.
- EU OPENS ANTITRUST CASE AGAINST GAZPROM
- GAZPROM SUSPECTED BY EU OF HINDERING COMPETITION IN GAS MARKETS
- GAZPROM MAY BE ABUSING DOMINANCE IN UPSTREAM GAS SUPPLY MARKETS
- GAZPROM MAY HAVE PREVENTED GAS SUPPLY DIVERSIFICATION, EU SAYS
- GAZPROM MAY HAVE UNFAIRLY LINKED PRICE OF GAS TO OIL PRICES
Did Gazprom do any/all of this? Of course: monopolists can do anything they want. Keyword being monopolists. As a result those whose markets Gazprom supplied with all critical natural gas, which in Europe is everyone, must take it like it, or else. Because when it comes to threats, whereas Mario Draghi's are absolutely hollow, and are merely perfected in the Goldman Sachs school of "what to do when you are not being taken seriously" (as practiced by that other Goldmanite Hank Paulson in the US 4 years ago), those from Gazprom, should the company decided to retaliate will mean the European winter will be not only depressionary, but very, very cold. And Europe may have just made sure of not only the former, but also the latter.
From that other monpoly, this time of infinite central planning complexity and endless bureacuracy - the EU
Antitrust: Commission opens proceedings against Gazprom
The European Commission has opened formal proceedings to investigate whether Gazprom, the Russian producer and supplier of natural gas, might be hindering competition in Central and Eastern European gas markets, in breach of EU antitrust rules. An opening of proceedings does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation; it only means that the Commission will treat the case as a matter of priority.
The Commission has concerns that Gazprom may be abusing its dominant market position in upstream gas supply markets in Central and Eastern European Member States, in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The Commission is investigating three suspected anti-competitive practices in Central and Eastern Europe. First, Gazprom may have divided gas markets by hindering the free flow of gas across Member States. Second, Gazprom may have prevented the diversification of supply of gas. Finally, Gazprom may have imposed unfair prices on its customers by linking the price of gas to oil prices.
Such behaviour, if established, may constitute a restriction of competition and lead to higher prices and deterioration of security of supply. Ultimately, such behaviour would harm EU consumers.
In September 2011, the Commission carried out inspections at the premises of gas companies in several Member States (see MEMO/11/641).
Article 102 TFEU prohibits the abuse of a dominant position which may affect trade between Member States. The implementation of this provision is defined in the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003), which can be applied by the Commission and by the national competition authorities of EU Member States.
Article 11(6) of the Antitrust Regulation provides that the initiation of proceedings by the Commission relieves the competition authorities of the Member States of their competence to also apply EU competition rules to the practices concerned. Article 16(1) of the same Regulation provides that national courts must avoid giving decisions which would conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings it has initiated.
The Commission has informed Gazprom and the competition authorities of the Member States that it has opened proceedings in this case.
There is no legal deadline to complete inquiries into anti-competitive conduct. The duration of an antitrust investigation depends on a number of factors, including the complexity of the case, the extent to which the undertaking concerned cooperates with the Commission and the exercise of the rights of defence.
More information on this investigation will be available in the Commission's public case register under the case number 39816.