In 2011, Croatia started an investigation of ex-prime minister Ivo Sanader for allegedly accepting a €10 million bribe from MOL in exchange for the Croatian Government approving the First Amendment to the Shareholders Agreement and thus MOL securing management rights, also accusing the company's chairman Hernádi.[13][14][15][16]
MOL repeatedly denied all the accusation. Soon after, the Hungarian prosecution launched an extensive investigation on suspicion of bribery and in 2012 dismissed all allegations of any criminal activity.[17][18]
In 2014, the Croatian government initiated arbitration under UNCITRAL rules, seeking nullification of the First Amendment to the Shareholder's Agreement, claiming that MOL unlawfully obtained management rights. In 2016, UNCITRAL rejected all of Croatia's claims and cleared MOL of all accusations, including allegation of bribery and breaching the shareholder agreement. This was further confirmed by the Swiss Supreme Court.[19][20][21] On December 20, 2019, the Zagreb County Court issued a first instance ruling in the Sander-Hernádi case, judging that the CEO of MOL was guilty of bribery and sentenced him to two years in prison.[22] MOL Group declared its disappointment with the judgement “as the existing decisions of the Hungarian authorities and those of the United Nations Tribunal in Geneva concluded that there was no wrongdoing by any MOL Group officer”. MOL declared full support of its board for Hernádi.[23][24][25][26] The Hungarian government qualified the condemnation of Hernádi as political pressure.[27] Two international legal scholars, Kai Ambos and David Anderson, Baron Anderson of Ipswich were appointed to independently monitor the fairness of the court case. The trial monitors accused the Croatian court of "bias" in support of Croatian "national interests" and violating internationally-recognised standards of fair trial, "including violating Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)."[28][29][30] On January 29, 2020, the same Zagreb court overturned its 2018 detention order against Hernádi. The decision, which can be appealed by Croatia's chief prosecutor, could lead to a cancellation of the European arrest warrant for Hernádi and his removal from an Interpol wanted list.[31][32]
In the complex and lengthy disagreement involving MOL and INA, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) based in Washington ruled in favor of MOL.[33] The dispute originated in 2013 when MOL initiated an arbitration case, alleging that Croatia had not fulfilled its contractual obligations. This marked the second time Croatia had found itself on the losing side of an arbitration case with MOL.[34] The first instance was in 2014, with an award of €14.5 million granted by a Swiss court.[35][36]
With the ICSID ruling, MOL was practically declared the winner of the arbitration dispute against Croatia,[37] and compensation in the amount of $250–300 million was given to MOL.[38] This sum is far lower than MOL's initial claim of $1 billion. Additionally, the court dismissed Croatia's allegations of corruption against MOL,[39] where the Hungarian company was accused of obtaining managerial control over INA through illicit means.
The ICSID decision highlighted Croatia's breach of contract, notably with regard to issues like gas trade regulation and natural gas pricing.[40] This disregard for the law significantly harmed INA and, inadvertently, MOL. Further compensation was granted to MOL due to the compelled sale of stored natural gas by an INA subsidiary at lower prices.
Zdravko Maric, the Croatian Finance Minister, submitted his resignation after the ICSID's decision, claiming personal reasons.[41][42] It remains unclear, though, exactly how his departure relates to the court's decision.
The ICSID decision is an important turning point in the prolonged legal fight between MOL and Croatia and a significant shift in their tumultuous history.[43]
In a related matter, opposition parties within the Croatian parliament were disappointment following the Swiss Federal Supreme Court's decision to reject Croatia's application for a review of the 2016 INA arbitration case.[44] Ivo Sanader and Zsolt Tamas Hernádi were found guilty of bribery in a judgment that was upheld by the Croatian Supreme Court[45] in February 2022, at the time when a request for a review was made.[46][47]
Significant differences in the testimony of various people, most notably Robert Jezic, influenced the Swiss court's ruling. This outcome drew frustration among Croatian officials,[48] with MP Dalija Oreskovic (Centre) asserting that the situation highlighted the nation's vulnerability and the potential inadequacy of its representation.
Some MPs contended that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court's verdict indicated concerns about the independence of Croatia's judiciary.[49] Nikola Grmoja (Most party) suggested that the outcome of the INA case influenced the arbitration's result and the subsequent review request. He raised concerns about systemic flaws within Croatia's judicial system,[50] casting doubt on the notion of an impartial judiciary.
The Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) government's activities should be closely scrutinized, Grmoja said in addition to highlighting the necessity for specificity while discussing the demands made by the Hungarian corporation MOL.[51] Notably, just one of MOL's previous arbitration attempts had succeeded in satisfying any of the six demands,[52] which raised questions about the specifics of their demands
