Hungary Challenges EU Russian Gas Ban in Landmark Legal Battle

BUDAPEST — Hungary has launched a significant legal challenge against the European Union's directive to fully phase out Russian gas imports by 2027, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle that could reshape the bloc's energy policy and test the boundaries of its legislative power. The lawsuit, filed with the European Court of Justice, underscores Budapest's deep-seated reliance on Russian energy and its contentious relationship with Brussels over sanctions and sovereignty. The outcome of this case holds profound implications not only for Hungary's energy security and economy but also for the future of coordinated EU action in times of crisis.

The Heart of the Dispute: Sanctions vs. Trade Policy

At the core of Hungary's legal argument lies a fundamental disagreement over the nature of the REPowerEU regulation, which mandates the ban on Russian gas imports. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó contends that an energy import ban constitutes a sanction, a measure requiring the unanimous approval of all EU member states. Since the REPowerEU regulation was adopted without Hungary's consent, it is argued to be illegal. This perspective highlights Hungary's long-standing position that such critical decisions impacting national energy security should not be imposed by a qualified majority vote. Slovakia has echoed Hungary's stance, with both nations signaling their intent to coordinate legal efforts against the ban.

The European Union, however, views the REPowerEU regulation as a trade policy measure rather than a sanction. Under EU law, the bloc possesses exclusive competence over trade policy, allowing decisions on imports from third countries to be made by a qualified majority, circumventing the need for unanimity. Brussels maintains that REPowerEU is a structural policy designed to reduce strategic dependence on a high-risk supplier and bolster the resilience of the EU energy market, rather than a punitive measure targeting a specific entity. The distinction is crucial, as the legal framework for sanctions falls under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which typically demands unanimity, while trade policy is governed by the Common Commercial Policy (CCP), where qualified majority voting is often applied.

Hungary's Energy Predicament and Economic Concerns

Hungary's opposition to the Russian gas ban is rooted in its significant reliance on Russian energy. In 2024, approximately 74% of Hungary's gas and 86% of its oil imports originated from Russia, figures that have reportedly increased since the invasion of Ukraine. This heavy dependence, coupled with long-term supply contracts, positions Hungary uniquely among EU member states. Budapest argues that severing ties with Russian energy sources would severely jeopardize its energy security, forcing it to rely on more expensive and less stable alternatives.

The economic ramifications for Hungary are projected to be substantial. Analysts suggest that a full ban could drastically increase household utility costs, potentially by as much as three-and-a-half times current levels, and drive up fuel prices. This surge in energy costs could impact nearly all economic sectors, leading to reduced household purchasing power, weakened competitiveness for exporting companies, and a potential slowdown in economic growth. The Hungarian forint has already shown signs of weakening against the euro, with concerns over future energy supplies cited as a contributing factor. While Hungary's revised National Energy and Climate Plan has, for the first time, identified dependence on Russian energy as a "risk," its strategy still focuses on gradual reduction rather than an abrupt cessation of imports, aiming for an 80% dependence on natural gas and 85% on oil by 2030.

The Principle of Energy Solidarity and EU Unity

Beyond the legal technicalities, Hungary's challenge also invokes the principle of "energy solidarity." Foreign Minister Szijjártó asserts that the EU's decision undermines this principle, which he argues guarantees a secure energy supply for all member states. However, EU law defines energy solidarity differently. The European Court of Justice, in the 2021 OPAL case, clarified that energy solidarity entails reducing shared vulnerabilities and preventing one member state's energy choices from endangering others, rather than ensuring cheap fuel for any single country. This interpretation suggests that the EU's focus is on collective energy security and diversification away from potentially unstable suppliers, a goal that the REPowerEU regulation aims to achieve.

The EU Council formally adopted the REPowerEU regulation on January 26, outlining a gradual phase-out of Russian pipeline gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). The regulation includes transition periods for existing contracts, with a full ban on LNG imports by early 2027 and pipeline gas imports by autumn 2027. Despite Hungary and Slovakia voting against these measures, and Bulgaria abstaining, the regulation passed, reflecting the broader EU commitment to reduce its reliance on Russian fossil fuels, which accounted for approximately 40% of total EU gas imports before 2022. By 2025, this share had reportedly fallen to about 13%.

The Path Ahead: Legal Proceedings and Political Undercurrents

The legal proceedings at the European Court of Justice are anticipated to be lengthy, with estimates suggesting a duration of 18 months to two years. This timeline introduces an element of political uncertainty for Hungary. The country's next parliamentary elections, scheduled for April 12, could significantly influence the trajectory of the lawsuit. Opinion polls currently indicate a lead for the pro-European Tisza party, headed by Péter Magyar, an opponent of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. A shift in the political landscape could alter Hungary's approach to the legal challenge and its broader energy policy.

While the EU remains steadfast in its defense of the REPowerEU regulation, emphasizing its necessity for collective energy independence and security, the Hungarian case highlights the enduring tensions between national interests and supranational directives within the bloc. The court's decision will not only determine the legality of the Russian gas ban but could also set precedents for how the EU exercises its authority in critical policy areas, particularly when faced with strong opposition from member states citing issues of sovereignty and economic stability. The battle over Russian gas is more than an energy dispute; it is a profound test of European unity and the interpretation of its foundational treaties.