One of the three Croatian members on INA's management board told the Zagreb County Court that one of the chief objectives of amending the shareholders' agreement between the former Sanader cabinet and MOL had been to strengthen Croatia's energy stability.

But the agreement is contrary to Croatia's interests, Mayer said. "Giving the management of one company over to another without having the elements to protect one own's interest can't be in Croatia's interest."

Responding to questions from the prosecution, which accuses Sanader of having turned over management rights in INA to MOL for EUR 10 million, the witness said INA's unprofitable gas business should have been divested before MOL acquired the dominant position in INA.

Mayer said the agreement with MOL envisages divesting the storage and sale of gas. Gas sales should remain within INA's remit, within the new company Prirodni Plin, and the price should be based on the price of imported Russian gas, he said. "And there's the problem, because the gas should have been bought at the market price and sold cheaper."

Speaking of INA's business in 2011, Mayer said the result was good, mainly because of the oil fields in Syria and the northern Adriatic, which he added had not been the result of MOL's activities.

He said MOL deserved the credit for economies, with which one "can't exaggerate", but there had been no investment in the infrastructure and modernisation. The modernisation of the Rijeka refinery has been only partial and that of the Sisak refinery has not even begun, he added.

"MOL's interest isn't necessarily INA's interest," said Mayer.

Earlier today, responding to questions from the prosecution, he said that under the changes to the shareholders' agreement, all management rights in INA were transferred to the strategic partner, MOL.

"It's all right for the majority owner to have majority rights but not all of them," he said when Sanader's defence asked that he explain his claim that this type of management did not exist in any other company.

The defence said Mayer's testimony was tendentious, an attempt to disregard the fact that the owner of more shares should have more management rights, as well as contradictory since Sanader, who was accused of signing bad agreements, was now being criticised for the fact that those agreements were not being honoured.

Apart from being tried for receiving a bribe from MOL, Sanader is also on trial for war profiteering, namely for receiving a commission from the Austrian Hypo bank for a loan Croatia used to buy several embassy buildings during wartime.