Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
21JUN

Two capitals filed on the gas directive

3 min read
17:51UTC

Portugal lodged a partial transposition in April. Slovakia lodged a note saying it needs none. The other twenty-five member states have filed nothing at all.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Only Portugal and Slovakia have told Brussels they have transposed the recast EU gas directive.

Portugal and Slovakia are the only members of the European Union's twenty-seven to have notified the European Commission of national measures transposing Directive (EU) 2024/1788, two days before the deadline of Wednesday 5 August 2026 1. The directive recast the bloc's rules for its internal markets in renewable gas, natural gas and hydrogen. Its Article 94 requires transposing measures to be in force by that Wednesday.

Portugal lodged Decreto-Lei n.º 94/2026 of 30 April 2026, whose own title calls it a transposição parcial, a partial transposition, covering this directive and the Energy Efficiency Directive together. Slovakia lodged Zákon č. 259/2025 under the register annotation "Member State does not consider the transposition necessary" 2. Bratislava has told Brussels it sees no new domestic law as needed. Lisbon has told Brussels it has written part of one.

EUR-Lex records notifications to the Commission, not the contents of national gazettes. Filing lags legislating as a matter of routine, and a capital can have a statute in force with nothing yet standing against its name in Brussels. What the register supports is the narrow reading, and the narrow reading still merits a desk's attention: two governments have told the Commission they have transposed, on a deadline whose listed articles run to unbundling, certification of transmission and distribution system operators, third-party access, tariff principles for gas and hydrogen networks, network development planning, storage and LNG facility access, and supplier switching 3.

Missing a transposition deadline starts a documented procedure rather than a fine. the Commission's April infringements package issued reasoned opinions against Croatia, Poland and Portugal over a separate electricity directive, leaving those three one procedural step short of a referral to the Court of Justice . The instruments that actually landed across the past fortnight came from agencies rather than parliaments: ACER published an EU-wide generation investment-cost dataset on 30 July , and CRE authorised experimental local flexibility markets on the RTE and Enedis platforms the same day. Harmonised hydrogen network access cannot arrive that way. It needs twenty-seven legislatures, and so far two of them have said anything at all.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

EU countries have until 5 August 2026 to write their own laws implementing a shared rulebook for gas and hydrogen networks, covering things like who can access a pipeline and how storage facilities are priced. Portugal has only partly done this so far, and Slovakia has told Brussels it thinks its existing laws already cover the requirement.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The directive folds hydrogen network access and storage rules into what was previously a gas-only regime, so states must decide whether to extend existing gas TSO certification frameworks to hydrogen operators or write parallel rules.

Portugal's partial filing and Slovakia's non-necessity claim both point to legislatures treating the hydrogen provisions as the harder drafting problem, not the established gas articles.

What could happen next?
  • Precedent

    The Commission's register will likely show a wave of late or partial notifications from other member states as the 5 August deadline passes, since Portugal and Slovakia's filings suggest hydrogen provisions are the sticking point across the bloc.

  • Risk

    Slovakia's non-necessity claim invites Commission scrutiny; a formal challenge would clarify how much existing national law can substitute for a new transposing instrument.

First Reported In

Update #32 · Two of 27 have filed on the gas rulebook

EUR-Lex· 3 Aug 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
Shipping and insurance industry
Shipping and insurance industry
UKMTO counted about 20 US-facilitated Hormuz transits a day to 11 September against only 6 visible on AIS, with traffic still around 90% below the 138-a-day pre-war baseline. War-risk underwriters cannot price hulls they cannot see, or resolve whether the tanker El Gaia hit a mine, as Iran claims, or a missile and drone, as CENTCOM says.
European refiners
European refiners
European refiners, including Poland's Orlen, absorbed a roughly $26 gap between Dated Brent at $130.80 on 15 September and ICE Brent futures settling at $103.87 on 18 September, a spread that widened from $13.45 on 9 September rather than newly opening. Their futures hedges no longer cover what they now pay for physical barrels.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Aramco zeroed European term customers' October allocations and rerouted roughly 60 million barrels to Asia through Ras Tanura and Sohar, using Red Sea and Gulf terminal capacity built years ago to cut Hormuz exposure. Riyadh reallocated existing supply rather than negotiating a shortfall with Europe.
Qatar
Qatar
Qatar's energy minister Saad al-Kaabi told Bloomberg at the Qatar Economic Forum on 20 September that Bessent's two-year Hormuz-obsolescence forecast is wrong, and that Doha has deliberately built no bypass pipeline. Qatar's gas exports run through one waterway by choice, not oversight.
Iran (foreign ministry and Majlis)
Iran (foreign ministry and Majlis)
Iran's foreign ministry and 130 Majlis deputies moved toward NPT withdrawal this week, with lawmaker Hossein-Ali Haji Deligani filing a triple-urgency bill on 20 September that Speaker Qalibaf has not yet scheduled. Tehran treats treaty membership as leverage still on the table, not yet spent.
Russia and China
Russia and China
Moscow and Beijing vetoed the Panel of Experts' renewal, maintaining Resolution 2231 lapsed in October 2025 and the 2025 snapback was never validly triggered, so the sanctions architecture the Panel enforces has no current legal standing. Both governments frame the veto as upholding law, not shielding Tehran.