The Council representing the governments of the European Union agreed on its position on the draft to export Russian crude oil and natural gas, the body announced on Monday.
In March 2022, the European Council, consisting of EU heads of state and government, including Viktor Orbán, unanimously stated that it would gradually end Russian energy dependence as quickly as possible, but “will take into account the national circumstances and the energy structure of the member states”. A committee plan was requested for the implementation by May 2022. This became REPowerEU, thanks to which the Hungarian government received an advance payment of roughly one billion euros from the EU recovery fund, without otherwise being able to receive any payments due to the unfulfilled rule of law conditions.
In June of this year, the proposing European Commission issued a draft law for the timetable for REPowerEU, which must be agreed upon by the Council and the European Parliament (EP). The Council agreed on its position on Monday. In the board, they would use the ordinary legislation used for the majority of legislation. In such cases, one or two governments cannot veto, depending on the population, at least four are needed. (The Hungarian government has previously indicated several times that the measure is essentially a sanction, that it should be adopted unanimously, i.e. the veto was bypassed through legislation.)
According to the original proposal, the import of Russian liquefied pipeline gas would be prohibited by the beginning of 2028. The pipeline – which will only come to Hungary and Slovakia – would be rolled out from the beginning of 2026, but with a transitional period for long-term and partially short-term contracts (for the former, the goal would still be 2028). Amendments to existing contracts would be limited and could not increase the volume,
“except for some specified flexibility” for landlocked countries “affected by recent changes in supply routes”.
The announcement does not say which member states are involved, but the wording also fits Hungary and Slovakia due to the country’s geographical situation and the suspension of Ukrainian transit at the beginning of the year.
Compared to the original proposal, the Council would “streamline” customs procedures, require easier documentation and procedures for non-Russian gas, and those member states that can be proven to no longer receive Russian gas would also not have to prepare a diversification plan. The implementation of the legislation would be reviewed with the European Commission within two years, and the reasons for the temporary exemptions would be made clearer even in the case of the suspension clause.
The Council must negotiate the final form of the legislation with the European Parliament. A few days ago, the representative body adopted its own position, which would tighten and speed up the original proposal at several points.
According to the Hungarian government, it would cost up to 800 billion more per year if we did not buy Russian gas, we checked this and the claims about supply disruptions here. Regarding the oil supply, there was a message in September about whether the Croatian Adriatic pipeline could replace the Russian resources.
Both his Polish and Croatian colleagues argued with Szijjártó, and the Slovak thanked him for his work even without his consent.
The energy ministers met in Luxembourg on Monday. Here, they “want to ruin the security of our energy supply by banning the purchase of natural gas and crude oil from Russia,” emphasized Péter Szijjártó on his way to Luxembourg. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade also spoke in the open part of the Council, where he warned that they do not want to mix politics into the energy supply, it is about the geographical situation and the physical reality. According to him, the legislation means that
“they kill Hungary’s safe supply”,
because the existing infrastructure would not be able to ensure this, and for oil it would reduce diversification if one pipeline remained instead of two, where the price was raised and he referred to the failed test in September. Anyway, “what we pay the Russians” is only 0.2 percent of their gross national economic product, that’s not what the war is about.
“We are not just talking about mathematics and physics, this discussion reaches the core values of the EU,
it’s about self-determination and democracy,” said his Polish colleague after Szijjártó. According to Miłosz Motyka, “we are spending billions of euros on arming the aggressor” instead of protecting ourselves, and we cannot base our energy security on the most unpredictable country, recalling previous Russian gas tap closures. “At that time, Russian gas was used as a weapon to blackmail us and destabilize prices and our energy markets.” Member States facing difficulties due to diversification must be supported, but solidarity is a two-way street, economic growth cannot be built on fuel that is “used for terrorism”, Motyka emphasized.
Slovak Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Energy Denisa Saková thanked the successive Danish Presidency of the Council and the European Commission for the work on the draft. He emphasized that due to prices and security of supply, this is a particularly sensitive issue for Slovakia economically. Lacking a coastline and bottlenecks despite connecting pipelines, they have limited access to other resources. Since they are among the most affected, they count on the support of various EU instruments, and for one of them they have prepared a specific proposal for this. During the negotiations, they also initiated the refinement of the emergency brake and evaluated the work of the presidency and committee, but he still believes that the proposal will have negative consequences for Slovakia, so he is not in a position to support it.
Szijjártó’s Croatian colleague also asked to speak separately to respond to the “statements about the Adriatic pipeline, which are simply not true”. Ante Šušnjar claimed that they can deliver oil to Hungary and even Slovakia at full capacity, “so we can guarantee 50 million tons”. The transport costs represent 2-3 percent of the total price, according to him they are able to do this based on numerous tests, and he called on all the ministers, “especially my colleague Szijjártó”, to be there at the next one. According to Szijjártó, the TAL pipeline is a quarter to a fifth of the transportation cost, and in addition
“no test has proven that this line can safely supply us, and frankly, we don’t want to try it.” “Thank you for your constructive comments,” Lars Aagaard concluded the discussion on behalf of the successive Danish presidency, at which several people began to laugh audibly,
and welcomed the invitation. At the end of this part of the meeting – where all member states spoke – he acknowledged the broad support of the proposal. (The exchange between Šušnjar and Szijjártó and then Aagaard’s comment can be seen here from 11:14.)
On Sunday, Economx wrote about how, according to the Ministry of Energy’s updated National Energy and Climate Plan, it is not only in Hungary’s interest, but also in the region’s interest, to manage the risks arising from import dependence, to diversify the crude oil supply, thereby avoiding the risk arising from exposure to the dominant supplier – currently the Russian partner.
We have supplemented our article with the public speeches of the Energy Council and the review of Economx.
