The dispute between MOL and Croatia over INA is a tangle of criminal prosecutions, international arbitrations, and enforcement battles that began with a 2009 management deal and has since produced a $183.94 million award in MOL’s favor, a Croatian bribery conviction against MOL’s CEO that Hungary refuses to recognize, and an active enforcement fight in U.S. federal court. Hungary’s largest oil and gas group holds a 47.16% stake in INA-Industrija Nafte, Croatia’s national oil company, and has spent more than a decade in litigation with the Croatian state over how it got management control of the firm.1Research file
What the Dispute Is About
Croatia began privatizing INA in 2002. MOL paid $505 million in 2003 for a 25%-plus-one-share stake, becoming the designated “Strategic Investor” under a shareholders agreement that tied board appointments to each side’s shareholding percentage.
By 2009, MOL’s stake had grown to 47.16% and Croatia’s had fallen to 44.85%. The parties renegotiated, signing a First Amended Shareholders Agreement and a separate Gas Master Agreement. Under the amended agreement, MOL gained management control over INA.
Croatia later alleged that the 2009 deal was the product of bribery. MOL has consistently denied any wrongdoing. That disagreement is the engine driving every proceeding that followed.
The Criminal Case Against Sanader and Hernádi
Croatian prosecutors charged former Prime Minister Ivo Sanader with accepting a €10 million bribe from MOL CEO Zsolt Hernádi in exchange for giving MOL its dominant position in INA. Sanader served as prime minister from 2003 to 2009.
Sanader was first convicted in 2012, but Croatia’s Constitutional Court overturned that ruling and ordered a retrial over procedural errors. In December 2019, a Zagreb court sentenced Sanader to six years and Hernádi to two years. Neither defendant was present. Sanader was already imprisoned on a separate corruption conviction. Hernádi remained in Hungary.
Why Hernádi Has Not Been Surrendered
Croatia issued its first European Arrest Warrant for Hernádi in October 2013 and followed it with warrants in 2015 and 2017. Hungarian courts repeatedly declined to surrender him, citing fair-trial concerns and the principle that he could not be tried twice for conduct Hungarian authorities had already investigated.
An Interpol Red Notice issued in October 2013 was suspended and then reinstated after a 2018 Court of Justice of the European Union ruling that sided with Croatia on the procedural requirements for executing the warrants. Hungary still declined to hand Hernádi over.
In March 2026, a Budapest court ruled that Hungary would not recognize the final Croatian convictions against Hernádi. MOL called the decision a “significant milestone.” Hernádi and Sanader have also filed a case at the European Court of Human Rights alleging the Croatian criminal proceedings violated their right to a fair trial; the case was communicated to the parties in September 2025 and is pending.
The ICSID Arbitration and MOL’s $183.94 Million Award
In November 2013, MOL filed an arbitration against Croatia at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, alleging breaches of the Energy Charter Treaty. The case, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/32, was heard by a tribunal chaired by Sir Franklin Berman, with William W. Park appointed by MOL and Brigitte Stern by Croatia.
MOL argued that Croatia had failed to provide fair and equitable treatment and had used unreasonable measures to impair MOL’s management of its investment. The tribunal went further in its findings, concluding that Croatia had pursued what it called “baseless criminal charges” against Hernádi as leverage to reclaim management rights over INA. The tribunal rejected the bribery allegations and found the primary witness against MOL “wholly unreliable.”
On July 5, 2022, the tribunal ruled in MOL’s favor and awarded $183.94 million in damages, plus costs, fees, and interest.
Enforcement in U.S. Courts
Croatia did not pay. In January 2023, MOL petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce the award. Croatia resisted on three main grounds: that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, that EU law invalidated the underlying arbitration agreement, and that paying would constitute unlawful state aid under European regulations.
The court rejected each argument. In an April 2025 ruling, Judge Amir H. Ali held that Croatia had waived sovereign immunity by agreeing to be bound by arbitration awards under the Energy Charter Treaty. On March 5, 2026, the court granted MOL summary judgment, ruling that the ICSID award was entitled to “full faith and credit” under U.S. law and that the court’s role was to enforce the award, not review its merits. The court explicitly dismissed Croatia’s EU law arguments, noting that whatever the European Commission’s view, the ICSID Convention and U.S. implementing legislation required enforcement.
Final judgment entered on April 28, 2026. Croatia filed a notice of appeal on May 26, 2026.
Croatia has also initiated annulment proceedings under the ICSID Convention itself, arguing that the tribunal mishandled critical evidence related to the corruption allegations. Those proceedings remain pending.
The Other Arbitrations
The ICSID case is not the only proceeding between the two sides. Croatia started its own arbitration against MOL in 2014 at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, seeking to prove the 2009 agreements were tainted by bribery and should be annulled. In a December 2016 award, that tribunal dismissed Croatia’s claims and ordered Croatia to pay MOL’s costs. Croatia challenged the award twice before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, in 2017 and again in 2022, and lost both times.
MOL has since brought more proceedings. A third arbitration under UNCITRAL rules (PCA Case No. 2023-09) covers contractual claims that the first ICSID tribunal declined to hear on jurisdictional grounds. A fourth case (ICSID Case No. ARB/24/19), also under the Energy Charter Treaty, was registered in June 2024 and had its tribunal constituted by November 2024. Both are pending.
The EU Dimension
In December 2025, the European Commission opened an infringement case against Hungary for failing to prevent MOL from enforcing the ICSID award and from launching new arbitrations against another EU member state. The Commission’s position reflects its broader view that investment arbitration between EU member states under the Energy Charter Treaty is incompatible with EU law. Hungary was given two months to respond or face further action.
That European position has not stopped enforcement outside Europe. The U.S. court applied the ICSID Convention and ordered the award paid regardless.
Where Things Stand
MOL holds a confirmed ICSID award, a U.S. judgment enforcing it, two Swiss Federal Supreme Court rulings backing a related win at The Hague, and a Hungarian court decision refusing to recognize the Croatian convictions against its CEO. Croatia holds criminal convictions it cannot execute against Hernádi, an active appeal in the D.C. Circuit, pending ICSID annulment proceedings, and a European Commission infringement case against Hungary that supports its legal theory even if not its immediate interests.
Two more arbitrations are pending between the parties, and the European Court of Human Rights case brought by Sanader and Hernádi has yet to be decided. The dispute over who legitimately controls INA, and who owes whom, is not close to over.