Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 101kWORD 16k
7 December 2016
E-009261-16
Question for written answer E-009261-16
to the Commission
Rule 130
András Gyürk (PPE)

 Subject:  Security of gas supply to Europe
 Answer in writing 

The Commission has granted Gazprom greater access to the Opal pipeline running through Germany. As a result of this decision, the utilisation rate of the North Stream pipeline has increased, which has led to a drop in the amount of gas being transmitted through other pipelines starting from Russia.

Does the Commission agree that rerouting gas transmission like this will upset the existing balance and that the security of the EU's natural gas supply will decrease by rerouting gas transmission to the Baltic Sea?

Is it not afraid that authorising more extensive use of the Opal pipeline will signal to Gazprom that the Commission does not wish to impede the construction of the North Stream 2 pipeline even though the European Parliament has also stated that constructing the natural gas pipeline would significantly damage the security of supply to Europe?

If the North Stream 2 pipeline is constructed and, in line with the plans, Gazprom stops gas transmission through the Jamal and Friendship pipelines, how will Commission indemnify Member States in central and eastern Europe that have sustained significant price increases due to the Commission's decision?

Original language of question: HU 
Legal notice