Interview: The legal stakes of ending Russian gas imports  

Why does this moment matter, and why is it important to be discussing the phase-out of Russian gas now? 

Olena Kuchynska: The main purpose of the ban is clear: it's a reaction to the war and support for the Ukrainian people. The idea is to deprive Russia of the income and funds that it uses to finance the war. But the issue is now much broader than Ukraine alone — it reflects a wider geopolitical shift. The ban sends a message to the outside world about how Europe can act and respond to an evolving world order—one that is less and less built on cooperation. Europe must be ready to act and react to new challenges. In this respect, the ban shows how Europe is prepared to take difficult — and sometimes unpopular — decisions when necessary.  

And then there are also wide-ranging practical implications. So the impact of the ban may reach far beyond legal discussions. 

Marie-Therese Richert Kunert: This is a very timely moment. Europe’s gas diversification journey started immediately after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It took time to diversify, but the EU has been successful in doing so. An outright, legally binding ban on Russian pipeline gas is therefore the natural next step and sends a clear signal.  At the same time, this ban is a binding EU law — and that immediately raises questions, because some countries are still importing Russian gas.  

From the perspective of the Energy Community, the situation remains something of a legal grey zone. Of course, the EU ban is binding for EU Member States, but it is not yet part of the Energy Community acquis. Yet because gas markets are interconnected, the effects are already felt beyond the EU, and formally extending such a ban to the region could have even broader implications.  

It also has broad implications for the future of our work at the Energy Community Secretariat. If RePower EU were to be adopted into the Energy Community, Contracting Parties would need to integrate it into their national legislation. Our role would then be to assist with transposition, prepare necessary adaptations, and monitor implementation. What happens in the next year, therefore, will significantly impact our work moving forward. 

Let's dig into the legal ramifications of the ban. First, are emergency exceptions possible — and how much flexibility is there? 

Marie-Therese:  The aim behind an emergency exception is not to create a permanent escape mechanism, but rather to allow limited flexibility where security of supply is genuinely at risk. Even then, any derogations would likely be narrowly defined and temporary. 

Olena:  Yes, emergency situations could allow for temporary derogations — for example, for a few weeks — but they are not designed as long-term solutions. Europe is not as dependent on Russian gas as it was before, which reduces the need for broader flexibility. Of course, what qualifies as an “emergency” will likely be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and that interpretation could become an important legal question in practice. 

What is likely to happen with existing gas contracts that contradict the ban?  

Marie-Therese: For new gas contracts concluded after the entry into force of the regulation, the situation is clear: you are not allowed to conclude a new contract for the import of Russian gas. But where there is already a valid supply contract, the problem is different. Under EU law, Member States cannot legally import Russian gas anymore — but the contract may still exist.  In practice, this means you have a contract that cannot be performed. Many of these supply contracts — especially with Russian counterparts — contain so-called “take-or-pay” clauses. Under such clauses, you commit to paying for contracted volumes regardless of whether you actually take delivery.  

Legally speaking, the contract continues to exist, but national and EU law prohibit performance. That creates a clear tension — and potentially a wave of contractual disputes. The recipient may argue: “I cannot legally import the gas.” The supplier may respond: “That may be so, but the contract says you must pay.” This is where disputes are likely to arise. We are talking about significant sums of money.  

Olena: It's important to note that regulations adopted almost a month ago introduce a differentiated approach to existing contracts. The treatment depends on, for instance, when contracts were entered into, whether they were amended, and the nature of those amendments. In other words, the approach is not uniform. Some gas supply agreements will already be banned starting from March this year, while others will only be prohibited in 2027. And then before the phaseout, suppliers will be required to provide information about the origin of the gas they supply, including specific documentation and procedures relating to gas of Russian origin. That should provide greater transparency and legal clarity during the transition period.  

At the panel, we will discuss which contractual and legal mechanisms are available and what steps suppliers may need to take. Panelists with dispute resolution experience will be able to share practical insights into how similar situations have been handled in the past and what outcomes might be expected.  

Hungary has challenged the ban before the European Court of Justice, and Slovakia is expected to follow suit. Does this create legal uncertainty around the phase-out? 

Marie-Therese: The cases is clearly the elephant in the room. It raises fundamental legal questions about competence, legal basis, and whether such measures require unanimity among Member States.  

But filing a complaint does not suspend the application of the regulation. The deadlines continue to run unless the Court grants interim measures, which are designed to preserve the status quo while the case is ongoing. Obtaining such interim relief is difficult, as the Court applies strict criteria, including the need to demonstrate irreparable harm. For now, the regulation remains in force – we have no information that either Member State has requested such relief.  

Then there is the fact that if a Member State were to refuse to comply while the case is pending, it could potentially face infringement proceedings under EU law if the challenge ultimately fails.  

Olena:   Proceedings before the Court of Justice typically take time — often a year or more. By that stage, many legal, contractual, and even infrastructure changes may already have taken place. Some commentators suggest that even if the Court were to find procedural issues or support the claims of the challenging member states, the regulation itself might not necessarily be fully cancelled.  

One reason could be to avoid creating further uncertainty or disruption for businesses that have already adapted to the new framework. The potential outcome of such proceedings, arguments of both sides and prospects of the claims are some of the matters that we also plan to discuss at the panel with our experts.