Action brought on 2 February 2026 – Hungary v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-46/26)

(C/2026/1343)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: Z. Fehér and Cs. Marosvári, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Hungary claims that the Court of Justice should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

First plea in law: incorrect choice of legal basis.

The legal basis for Regulation 2026/261 is Article 194(2) TFEU and Article 207 TFEU.

Article 207 TFEU can only serve as a legal basis for legislative acts that define the framework for implementing the common commercial policy or whose effects on trade are not secondary. The centre of gravity of Regulation 2026/261, having regard in particular to its purpose and content, does not fall within the scope of trade regulation, but within that of restrictive measures under Article 215 TFEU, since the main purpose of that regulation is not to regulate trade in natural gas, but to require the interruption of trade relations with a third State in the area of natural gas, which is why it should have been adopted on the basis of Article 215 TFEU and not on the basis of Article 207 TFEU.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 194(2) TFEU.

Legislative acts adopted under Article 194(2) TFEU cannot affect the right of Member States to determine the conditions for exploiting their energy resources, nor the choice of Member States between the different energy sources or the general configuration of their energy supply. That provision may be regarded as a limitation of powers.

Regulation 2026/261 prohibits imports of pipeline gas and liquefied natural gas originating in or exported from the Russian Federation. The actual effect of that prohibition is to compel Hungary to examine the possibility of introducing other energy sources and to restructure the overall configuration of its energy supply. Therefore, the regulation infringes Article 194(2) TFEU.

Third plea in law: infringement of the principle of solidarity in the field of energy policy.

In accordance with Article 194(1) TFEU, solidarity between Member States must also take effect in the field of energy policy. Under the principle of solidarity in energy policy, the institutions of the European Union are required to examine whether a particular measure or act is harmful to the energy interests of individual Member States and, if so, to strike a balance between that harm and the interests of the other Member States and of the European Union as a whole. In adopting Regulation 2026/261, the institutions of the European Union failed to act in that way, thereby infringing the principle of solidarity in the field of energy policy.

Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality;

The principle of proportionality requires that, where there are a number of appropriate measures, the least onerous of those measures should be used and that the disadvantages caused should not be disproportionate to the objectives pursued.

The objective pursued by Regulation 2026/261 is not proportionate to the harm caused to Member States such as Hungary, whose natural gas supply continues to depend heavily on Russian gas. Furthermore, the objective pursued by that regulation could have been achieved by less restrictive measures.

(1)   OJ L, 2026/261, 2.2.2026.