BubsyFanboy

The European Union has unveiled plans to legally bypass Hungary and Slovakia to ban Russian gas imports by 2027, using trade and energy laws that avoid national vetoes.

Slovakia and Hungary, which have sought to maintain close political ties with Russia, say switching to alternatives would increase energy prices. They have vowed to block sanctions on Russian energy, which require unanimous approval from all EU countries, and have opposed the ban.

The Commission based its proposed ban on EU trade and energy law to get around this, relying on support from most countries and a majority of the European Parliament.

First, imports would be banned from January 1, 2026, under any Russian pipeline gas and LNG contracts signed during the remainder of this year.

Imports under short-term Russian gas deals—those lasting less than one year—signed before June 17, 2025, would be banned from June 17 next year.

Finally, imports under existing long-term Russian contracts would be banned from January 1, 2028, effectively ending the EU's use of Russian gas by this date, the Commission said.

Hungary and Slovakia, which still import Russian gas via pipeline and have opposed the EU plans, would have until January 1, 2028, to end their imports, including those on short-term contracts.

“When the legislation is passed, all countries, of course, has to apply to it, and if they don't, then there will be legal consequences, like with any other legislation in the European Union,” Dan Jørgensen, European Commissioner for Energy and Housing said.

Russia loses market

The EU would also gradually ban liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals from providing services to Russian customers, and companies importing Russian gas would have to disclose information on their contracts to EU and national authorities.

On Monday, EU energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen said that the measures were designed to be legally strong enough for companies to invoke the contractual clause of “force majeure”–an unforeseeable event–to break their Russian gas contracts.

About 19% of Europe’s gas still comes from Russia via the TurkStream pipeline and LNG shipments, down from roughly 45% before 2022.

Companies, including TotalEnergies and Spain’s Naturgy, have Russian LNG contracts extending into the 2030s.

To replace Russian supplies, the EU has signaled it will expand clean energy and could import more LNG from the U.S.

Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and France import Russian LNG but have all said they fully support the ban, emphasizing that it must be sufficiently robust legally to avoid exposing companies to penalties or arbitration, EU diplomats told Reuters.

The European Union has unveiled plans to legally bypass Hungary and Slovakia to ban Russian gas imports by 2027, using trade and energy laws that avoid national vetoes.

Slovakia and Hungary, which have sought to maintain close political ties with Russia, say switching to alternatives would increase energy prices. They have vowed to block sanctions on Russian energy, which require unanimous approval from all EU countries, and have opposed the ban.

The Commission based its proposed ban on EU trade and energy law to get around this, relying on support from most countries and a majority of the European Parliament.

First, imports would be banned from January 1, 2026, under any Russian pipeline gas and LNG contracts signed during the remainder of this year.

Imports under short-term Russian gas deals—those lasting less than one year—signed before June 17, 2025, would be banned from June 17 next year.

Finally, imports under existing long-term Russian contracts would be banned from January 1, 2028, effectively ending the EU's use of Russian gas by this date, the Commission said.

Hungary and Slovakia, which still import Russian gas via pipeline and have opposed the EU plans, would have until January 1, 2028, to end their imports, including those on short-term contracts.

“When the legislation is passed, all countries, of course, has to apply to it, and if they don't, then there will be legal consequences, like with any other legislation in the European Union,” Dan Jørgensen, European Commissioner for Energy and Housing said.

Russia loses market

The EU would also gradually ban liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals from providing services to Russian customers, and companies importing Russian gas would have to disclose information on their contracts to EU and national authorities.

On Monday, EU energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen said that the measures were designed to be legally strong enough for companies to invoke the contractual clause of “force majeure”–an unforeseeable event–to break their Russian gas contracts.

About 19% of Europe’s gas still comes from Russia via the TurkStream pipeline and LNG shipments, down from roughly 45% before 2022.

Companies, including TotalEnergies and Spain’s Naturgy, have Russian LNG contracts extending into the 2030s.

To replace Russian supplies, the EU has signaled it will expand clean energy and could import more LNG from the U.S.

Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and France import Russian LNG but have all said they fully support the ban, emphasizing that it must be sufficiently robust legally to avoid exposing companies to penalties or arbitration, EU diplomats told Reuters.

The European Union has unveiled plans to legally bypass Hungary and Slovakia to ban Russian gas imports by 2027, using trade and energy laws that avoid national vetoes.

Slovakia and Hungary, which have sought to maintain close political ties with Russia, say switching to alternatives would increase energy prices. They have vowed to block sanctions on Russian energy, which require unanimous approval from all EU countries, and have opposed the ban.

The Commission based its proposed ban on EU trade and energy law to get around this, relying on support from most countries and a majority of the European Parliament.

First, imports would be banned from January 1, 2026, under any Russian pipeline gas and LNG contracts signed during the remainder of this year.

Imports under short-term Russian gas deals—those lasting less than one year—signed before June 17, 2025, would be banned from June 17 next year.

Finally, imports under existing long-term Russian contracts would be banned from January 1, 2028, effectively ending the EU's use of Russian gas by this date, the Commission said.

Hungary and Slovakia, which still import Russian gas via pipeline and have opposed the EU plans, would have until January 1, 2028, to end their imports, including those on short-term contracts.

“When the legislation is passed, all countries, of course, has to apply to it, and if they don't, then there will be legal consequences, like with any other legislation in the European Union,” Dan Jørgensen, European Commissioner for Energy and Housing said.

Russia loses market

The EU would also gradually ban liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals from providing services to Russian customers, and companies importing Russian gas would have to disclose information on their contracts to EU and national authorities.

On Monday, EU energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen said that the measures were designed to be legally strong enough for companies to invoke the contractual clause of “force majeure”–an unforeseeable event–to break their Russian gas contracts.

About 19% of Europe’s gas still comes from Russia via the TurkStream pipeline and LNG shipments, down from roughly 45% before 2022.

Companies, including TotalEnergies and Spain’s Naturgy, have Russian LNG contracts extending into the 2030s.

To replace Russian supplies, the EU has signaled it will expand clean energy and could import more LNG from the U.S.

Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and France import Russian LNG but have all said they fully support the ban, emphasizing that it must be sufficiently robust legally to avoid exposing companies to penalties or arbitration, EU diplomats told Reuters.

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal (TK) has ruled that European Union energy and climate regulations are incompatible with the Polish constitution and breach national sovereignty in determining energy policy.

The Tribunal found that EU institutions, including the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), had exceeded their competences by interpreting EU treaties in a way that significantly impacts Poland’s ability to choose its energy sources independently.

Interpretations of EU law “cannot mean that Poland loses control over the scope of its delegated competences, and thus that there are areas in which its sovereignty (here: energy) is not protected”, the court said in a statement announcing its decision.

However, the ruling is unlikely to have any real effect for now given that the current government, a coalition led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, does not recognise the TK’s legitimacy due to it containing judges unlawfully appointed by the former Law and Justice (PiS) administration.

The case was brought by a group of opposition lawmakers led by Sebastian Kaleta, a PiS MP and former deputy justice minister. The motion challenged the compatibility of EU climate rules – including Directive 2003/87/EC, which created the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) – with the Polish constitution.

The MPs argued that, although Poland had transferred some powers to Brussels, it should retain sovereignty over critical energy decisions. They claimed that mandatory participation in the EU ETS restricts economic freedom and undermines the state’s ability to ensure energy security.

They also warned that EU decision-making processes, which do not require unanimity in the European Council on issues affecting Poland’s energy mix, might breach the limits of competence conferred on the EU and undermine the primacy of the Polish constitution.

In its ruling, the TK agreed with the motion’s core arguments. It held that the CJEU had extended the interpretation of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union beyond the conferred competences, infringing on national sovereignty.

“Competences not conferred on the European Union belong to the member states themselves, and the EU can only act on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity, subject to the scrutiny of national parliaments at all times,” the court said.

Consequently, the TK found this interpretation of EU law to be incompatible with the Polish constitution, emphasising that Poland cannot lose control over the scope of delegated powers, especially in such a key area as energy sovereignty.

The TK, however, discontinued proceedings relating specifically to the ETS “due to the incomplete, from a formal point of view, definition of the object under verification”.

The TK concluded its statement by stating that it was now up to the Polish legislature and executive to take “appropriate public law measures” to implement the decision, which enters into force upon its publication.

However, it is the government that is responsible for publishing TK rulings, and it refuses to do so due to given that some of the tribunal’s judges were illegitimately appointed under PiS.

The ruling could still reverberate in Polish politics, however. The PiS-aligned president-elect, Karol Nawrocki, who takes office in August, said last month that the TK’s decision on this case could be a way to lower the electricity prices by 33% – one of his campaign promises.

He also pledged to hold a referendum on withdrawing from the EU’s Green Deal – a set of policies aimed at reaching climate neutrality by 2050 – and reaffirmed his support for coal, which remains Poland’s main source of electricity generation and is also widely used for heating homes.

PiS politicians welcomed the verdict, insisting that it means that Poland does not have to implement the Green Deal.

“The EU has not been given the competence to decide without the consent of Poland which energy sources we can use and what fiscal burdens may be imposed on individual sources,” Kaleta wrote on X. “This opens the path for a radical reduction in electricity and heating prices now.”

The former justice minister in the PiS government, Zbigniew Ziobro, meanwhile, challenged Tusk, asking if he would “break the law again and hide the verdict to drive Poles into poverty” or “will you behave as you should?”

The government has so far not commented on the TK’s ruling.