The following is the English translation of a press release kindly provided to us by the Center for Fundamental Rights.
If Hungary were to fully detach from Russian natural gas imports, as envisioned by Brussels, utility costs would rise sharply, and the current system of reduced household utility prices would effectively come to an end, according to a flash analysis on energy policy published by the Center for Fundamental Rights.
The Center outlines the cost-increasing effects of the REPowerEU regulation in five key points:
- Higher import costs: For Hungary, the primary alternative to Russian pipeline gas would be liquefied natural gas (LNG). However, LNG transportation costs are seven to eight times higher than those of pipeline deliveries. This alone would raise procurement prices by 30–40 per cent and, inevitably, push consumer utility bills significantly higher.
- Loss of preferential pricing: Hungary would forfeit the favourable pricing arrangements negotiated in long-term Russian energy contracts.
- Weakened bargaining power: The country would lose its ability to negotiate lower prices—an advantage derived from sourcing natural gas through multiple routes and from multiple suppliers.
- Loss of transit revenues: Hungary would also lose revenue generated by the transit of large volumes of Russian gas through its pipeline network.
- Deterioration of foreign trade position: Abandoning a diversified energy portfolio would weaken Hungary’s foreign trade standing and lead to further revenue losses.
Beyond the economic impact, the Center argues that Brussels adopted the regulation unlawfully and in violation of EU treaties. Specifically:
(a) decisions on the energy mix fall under the competence of Member States;
(b) the measure is not a trade policy tool but a de facto sanction, which would have required unanimity in the Council; and
(c) it breaches long-term natural gas supply contracts, including the Russian–Hungarian agreement, potentially exposing the EU to damage claims by the Russian side.
Based on these facts, the Hungarian government has solid legal grounds to challenge the regulation before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Notably, however, the decision is supported not only by Ukraine but also by the Tisza Party in Hungary. In recent days, experts associated with Tisza have repeatedly stated that a complete break from Russian gas—effectively dismantling what they describe as the ‘fictitious’ utility price reduction programme—is a welcome development.
Alongside legal remedies, the Center identifies several political responses to mitigate the impact of the decision. One would be the swift achievement of peace in Ukraine, which would render such measures unnecessary or at least significantly reduce their consequences—an outcome the Center argues is being obstructed by continual countermeasures from Brussels’s political leadership. The other response is societal in nature: preserving sovereign decision-making in energy policy, particularly given concerns that, based on past experience, Tisza would be unable to refuse similar demands from Brussels in the future.
Related articles:
