Yuriy Vitrenko, the Executive Director of Naftogaz Ukrainy, has cited the arguments on which the decisions of the Stockholm arbitration in a dispute with Russia's Gazprom were based.

Commenting on Gazprom's claims of allegedly "unbalancing" in the contractual relations on his Facebook page, he noted that gas supply and transit contracts are "different in nature."

The take-or-pay clause, in particular, providing for an overestimated obligation of Ukraine to purchase gas, was spelled out in such a way that it did not comply with European competition law. So, Gazprom could sell volumes of Russian gas unnecessary to Ukraine in Europe, while Naftogaz was banned from re-exporting it, and it was not clear for the country what to do with this resource. At the same time, the transit capacities that Naftogaz provided for Gazprom could not be resold to anyone.

"That is, for us it's an irrevocable loss when we provided the capacities for Gazprom, but it didn't pay for them. But Gazprom could calmly fully load these capacities – it was just that he specifically limited transit, thereby reducing the total gas supply in the European market so that there would be a higher price," Vitrenko said.

The Naftogaz top manager also presented the calculations for the Stockholm arbitration for 2009-2018, according to which the Russian company received $46.6 billion more from gas sales to Ukraine than the country received for transit. Moreover, such a difference would be 3.6 times less, amounting to about $13 billion, if Gazprom sold gas to Ukraine at the price of its sale to Germany, and the transit tariff would comply with European standards.