Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:743
Date: 2025-10-02
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Translation C-369/24 – 1 
Case C-369/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
24 May 2024 
Referring court: 
Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
13 May 2024 
Applicants: 
MET Magyarország Energiakereskedő Zrt. 
Global NRG ROM SRL 
Defendant: 
Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal 
  
Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary) 
[…] 
First applicant: MET Magyarország Energiakereskedő Zrt. ([…] Budapest […]) 
[…] 
Second applicant: Global NRG ROM SRL ([…] Odorhei Secuiesc, Hargita 
Province, Romania) 
[…] 
Defendant: Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal (Hungarian 
Regulation Authority for the Energy Sector and Public Utilities; […] Budapest 
[…]) 
[…] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 5. 2024 – CASE C-369/24 
 
2  
Intervener in support of the defendant: FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt. ([…] Siófok 
[…]) 
[…] 
Subject matter of the dispute: review of the legality of the decision […] adopted 
in the field of energy 
Decision 
The Budapest High Court has referred a question to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 35(1) of 
Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/460 of 16 March 2017 establishing a network 
code on harmonised transmission tariff structures for gas (‘the TAR NC 
Regulation’). 
The Budapest High Court hereby refers the following question to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
Having regard to the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, 
should Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation be interpreted as meaning 
that the exemption from application of that regulation also covers the long-
term capacity booking contracts concluded before 2017, in which the pricing 
clauses did not provide for the capacity- and/or commodity-based 
transmission tariff determined at the time the contract was concluded to vary 
exclusively according to a pre-determined formula based on the consumer 
price index established by the national statistics office, but rather – by virtue 
of a mandatory provision of national law – applied the official network use 
tariff instead of the calculated tariff, wherever the former was lower, the 
official tariff being the tariff that the parties index in the following period 
(that tariff being determined by the authority taking into account not only 
the indexation but also the new short-term capacity booking contracts 
concluded for a given network interconnection pipeline and the revenue 
derived from those contracts, and the internal rate of return)? 
[…] [Considerations of national procedural law] 
Basis of the request 
1 The Budapest High Court, as an administrative court hearing an action in the 
energy sphere, is asking the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court of 
Justice’), under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union (TFEU), for an interpretation of certain provisions of EU law, required to 
reach a decision in the main proceedings. 
MET MAGYARORSZÁG AND GLOBAL NRG ROM 
 
3 
Subject matter of the main proceedings and relevant facts 
2 In 2008, as owner and operator of the Hungarian high-pressure natural gas 
transmission pipeline network and natural gas transmission system operator (‘the 
system operator’), the intervener in support of the defendant managed the ‘Open 
Season’ capacity booking procedures for the sale of long-term capacity in the gas 
pipeline between Algyő (Hungary) and Arad (Romania) (‘the pipeline’). The 
applicants also took part in that procedure as bidders, in their capacity as natural 
gas supplier companies using the natural gas transmission system as users of that 
system. On 20 October 2008, the system operator concluded a long-term contract 
with the applicants for capacity booking, natural gas transmission and network 
operation (‘the long-term contract’) for the period 2010-2030, which was 
amended several times by the parties as described in paragraphs 7 and 8 below. 
3 The defendant (the Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal 
(Hungarian Regulation Authority for the Energy Sector and Public Utilities, 
‘MEKH’)), as the regulatory body, set the official network use tariffs for the 
capacities not booked in long-term contracts, in the tariff regulations in force from 
time to time. Until 30 September 2019, the defendant set the official tariffs for the 
use of the network for the spare capacity quantities not covered by long-term 
contracts as regards the border exit point between Hungary and Romania 
(Csanádpalota border exit point) using a methodology different from that used for 
other points of the Hungarian natural gas transmission system, namely the 
‘discounted cash flow’ model, the purpose of which was to ensure the profitability 
of the investment in the construction of the pipeline. In determining the official 
network use tariff, the defendant took into account not only indexation but also 
other aspects such as new capacity bookings and the revenues derived from them, 
and the internal rate of return. 
4 Article 104(7) of the a földgázellátásról szóló 2008. évi XL. Törvény (Law XL of 
2008 on the supply of natural gas; ‘the Natural gas supply law’) – amended by the 
az energetikai tárgyú törvények módosításáról szóló 2011. évi XXIX. Törvény 
(Law XXIX of 2011, amending the laws regulating the energy sector) – 
establishes that, from 1 July 2011, ‘a price higher than the official price may not 
be validly stipulated in the contract. If the parties have not agreed a price and there 
is an official price in force for the product or service, that official price shall 
apply. The official price shall also apply where the parties have agreed a different 
price that is contrary to the law or the decision establishing the official price’. 
5 With regard to the transmission tariff for the border exit point between Hungary 
and Romania, the formula stated in clause 3 of the long-term contracts provided 
for an annual indexation (an ‘increase’, according to the wording of the contract), 
according to which the specific tariff applicable for the following period was 
calculated on the basis of a pre-determined formula based on the consumer price 
index established by the national statistics office. However, when determining the 
annual transmission tariff, the parties to the contract took into account the official 
network use tariff established in the tariff regulations in force from time to time – 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 5. 2024 – CASE C-369/24 
 
4  
application of that tariff being mandatory under Article 104(7) of the Natural gas 
supply law – and thus the tariff to be paid by the applicants could not exceed this 
official tariff. On this basis, from the entry into force of the long-term contracts 
until 30 September 2019, the applicants had to pay each year the lower of the two 
following amounts: the indexed contractual tariff determined in the long-term 
contract or the official network use tariff determined using the discounted cash 
flow model. 
6 On 6 April 2017, the TAR NC Regulation entered into force. Article 6(3) of that 
regulation establishes that the same reference price methodology must be applied 
to all entry and exit points in a given entry-exit system. Given that the Hungarian 
pipeline system as a whole constitutes a single entry-exit system, after the entry 
into force of the TAR NC Regulation, different reference price methodologies 
cannot, in principle, be applied to different exit points. The new rules based on 
uniform principles were applied for the first time in the reference price 
methodology established by Decision H1565/2019, with effect from 1 October 
2019. As a consequence, the defendant also set the tariff for the border exit point 
between Hungary and Romania to be paid by the applicants under the long-term 
contracts in the same way as for all the other exit points in the network, on the 
basis of the uniform methodology. 
7 According to clause 3.1 of the basic contract signed by the legal predecessor of 
the first applicant on 20 October 2008 ([…] ‘Contract I’), the ‘maximum initial 
individual tariff calculated for 1 January 2010 shall be [MET business secret] 
forints/m3/hour/year, with a minimum capacity booking of [MET business secret] 
1 000 m3/hour/year’; ‘the calculated annual tariff shall be increased once a year, 
for the first time as from 1 July 2010, with effect from the following gas year’. 
This clause also determines the indexation formula for power-based transmission 
tariffs. Clause 3 of the basic contract already established that ‘if the tariff 
regulations modify the natural gas transmission and system operation tariffs with 
respect to the terms of this contract, the contracting parties will apply such 
modifications automatically during the term of this contract in accordance with 
the scope of the modifications’. 
Contract I was amended for the first time on 17 October 2011. Through this 
amendment No 1 […] the following text was added to clause 3: ‘At the 
Csanádpalota exit point, the tariff for the service will be set within the framework 
of a procedure in accordance with the relevant regulations and in accordance with 
the provisions of a földgáz rendszerhasználati díjak megállapításáról szóló 
31/2009. (VI. 25.) KHEM rendelet [(Ministerial Order No 31/2009 of 25 June 
2009 of the Minister for Transport, Telecommunications and Energy establishing 
the tariffs for use of the natural gas network; ‘the tariff order’)], as amended. For 
the avoidance of doubt, the contracting parties state that, where the capacity-based 
tariffs in force from time to time under the tariff order are more favourable to the 
network user than the tariffs set in accordance with clause 3.1 of the contract, the 
former must automatically be applied.’ The maximum initial tariff was also 
amended, with the amended contract stating that ‘the maximum initial individual 
MET MAGYARORSZÁG AND GLOBAL NRG ROM 
 
5 
tariff calculated for 1 July 2010 will be [MET business secret] 
forints/MJ/m3/hour/year, with a minimum capacity booking of [MET business 
secret] 1 000 MJ/hour/year’. 
Amendment No 2 […] to Contract I was also made on 17 October 2011. Through 
this amendment the tariff was no longer indexed for the gas year period from 
1 July to 30 June but, rather, the contract established a ‘maximum initial 
individual tariff of [MET business secret] forints/MJ/hour/year’ for the period 
from 1 to 12 July 2011 and of [MET business secret] forints/MJ/hour/year from 
13 July 2011 onwards. 
Amendment No 3 […] to Contract I was made on 29 June 2012. Through this 
amendment it was stated that the ‘maximum individual tariff calculated for the 
period from 1 July 2012 to 1 July 2013 will be [MET business secret] 
forints/MJ/hour/year’, and it was stipulated that ‘in view of the fact that the 
maximum individual tariff calculated for the gas year 2012/2013 ([MET business 
secret] forints/MJ/hour/year) exceeds the maximum tariff set by Decision 
No 535/2012 of the Magyar Energia Hivatal (Hungarian Energy Office), issued in 
a procedure before the administrative authority, the maximum individual tariff 
applicable as from 1 July 2012 will be 214.45 forints/MJ/hour/year’. Thus, as 
from 1 July 2012, the official regulated tariff for network use was applied. 
According to amendment No 4 […] to Contract I, which was made on 25 July 
2013, ‘as from 26 July 2013, the individual amount of the increased tariff will be 
214.45 * 1.05628 = 226.52 forints/MJ/hour/year, which corresponds to the 
amount of the regulated tariff laid down in Annex 2 to MEKH Resolution 1/2013 
of 11 July 2013. Consequently, as from 26 July 2013, the applicable tariff will be 
226.52 forints/MJ/hour/year’. Thus, the tariff applicable as from 26 July 2013 was 
calculated on the basis of the official regulated network use tariff for the 
preceding period, which was indexed. This indexed tariff thus calculated was the 
same as the official tariff and was therefore the applicable tariff. 
According to amendment No 5 […] to Contract I, which was made on 30 June 
2014, given that the amount of the increased individual tariff calculated on the 
basis of the regulated tariff for the previous period was higher than the regulated 
tariff laid down in Annex 2 to MEKH Decision 1/2013 of 11 July 2013, a tariff of 
229.50 forints/MJ/hour/year, identical to the regulated tariff, was applied as from 
1 July 2014. 
According to amendment No 6 […] to Contract I, which was made on 30 June 
2015, given that the amount of the increased individual tariff calculated on the 
basis of the regulated tariff for the previous period was higher than the regulated 
tariffs in force as from 1 July 2015 and as from 1 October 2015 laid down in 
Annex 2 to MEKH Decision 1/2013 of 11 July 2013, a tariff of 229.68 
forints/MJ/hour/year was applied from 1 July 2015 and a tariff of 746.09 
forints/MJ/hour/year from 1 October 2015. These tariffs were identical to the 
regulated tariffs. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 5. 2024 – CASE C-369/24 
 
6  
According to amendment No 7 […] to Contract I, which was made on 
20 September 2016, given that the amount of the increased individual tariff 
calculated on the basis of the regulated tariff for the previous period was higher 
than the regulated tariff in force as from 1 October 2016 laid down in Annex 2 to 
MEKH Decision 1/2013 of 11 July 2013, a tariff of 747.88 forints/MJ/hour/year, 
identical to the regulated tariff, was applied as from 1 October 2016. 
Contract I was amended again on 1 October 2016 (amendment No 8 […]) because 
an error had been made in the calculation of the increased tariff in amendment 
No 7. According to the correct calculation, the increased tariff was lower ([MET 
trade secret] forints/MJ/hour/year) than the regulated tariff, and the calculated 
tariff was therefore applied from 1 October 2016. 
According to amendment No 9 […] to Contract I, which was made on 1 October 
2017, given that the amount of the increased individual tariff calculated on the 
basis of the tariff for the previous period was higher than the regulated tariff in 
force as from 1 October 2017 laid down in Annex 1 to MEKH Decision 13/2016 
of 20 December 2016, a tariff of 740.02 forints/MJ/hour/year, identical to the 
regulated tariff, was applied as from 1 October 2017. 
According to amendment No 10 […] to Contract I, which was made on 1 October 
2018, given that the increased individual tariff calculated on the basis of the 
regulated tariff for the previous period was higher than the regulated tariff in force 
as from 1 October 2018 laid down in Annex 1 to MEKH Decision 13/2016 of 
20 December 2016, a tariff of 708.24 forints/MJ/hour/year, identical to the 
regulated tariff, was applied as from 1 October 2018. 
In view of the legislative changes resulting from the commencement of the 
implementation of the TAR NC Regulation and affecting the transmission tariff 
system, the first applicant did not enter into amendment No 11 to Contract I. Since 
1 October 2019, that party has been making payments to the system operator 
while reserving its rights. 
8 Like Contract I, the basic contract […] signed by the legal predecessor of the 
second applicant on 20 October 2008 (‘Contract II’) contained the same 
provisions in its clause 3 as set out in paragraph 5 above. 
Contract II was amended for the first time […] on 8 August 2011. In accordance 
with this amendment the tariff was no longer indexed for the gas year period from 
1 July to 30 June but, rather, the contract established a ‘maximum initial 
individual tariff of [Global NRG business secret] forints/MJ/hour/year’ for the 
period from 1 to 12 July 2011 and of [Global NRG business secret] 
forints/MJ/hour/year from 13 July 2011 onwards. 
There was no amendment No 2. 
Amendment No 3 […] to Contract II was made on 29 June 2012. This amendment 
set a ‘maximum individual tariff calculated for the period from 1 July 2012 to 
MET MAGYARORSZÁG AND GLOBAL NRG ROM 
 
7 
1 July 2013 of [Global NRG business secret] forints/MJ/hour/year’, and it was 
stipulated that ‘in view of the fact that the maximum individual tariff calculated 
for the gas year 2012/2013 of ([Global NRG business secret] 
forints/MJ/hour/year) exceeds the maximum tariff set by Decision No 535/2012 of 
the Hungarian Energy Office, issued in a procedure before the administrative 
authority, the maximum individual tariff applicable as from 1 July 2012 will be 
214.45 forints/MJ/hour/year’. Thus, as from 1 July 2012, the official regulated 
network use tariff was applied. 
According to amendment No 4 […] to Contract II, which was made on 25 July 
2013, ‘the individual amount of the increased tariff as from 26 July 2013 will be 
214.45 * 1.05628 = 226.52 forints/MJ/hour/year, which corresponds to the 
amount of the regulated tariff laid down in Annex 2 to MEKH Decision 1/2013 of 
11 July 2013. Consequently, as from 26 July 2013, the applicable tariff will be 
226.52 forints/MJ/hour/year’. Thus, the tariff applicable as from 26 July 2013 was 
calculated on the basis of the official regulated network use tariff for the 
preceding period, which was indexed. This indexed tariff thus calculated was the 
same as the official tariff and was therefore the applicable tariff. 
According to amendment No 5 […] to Contract II, which was made on 30 June 
2014, given that the amount of the increased individual tariff calculated on the 
basis of the regulated tariff for the previous period was higher than the regulated 
tariff laid down in Annex 2 to MEKH Decision 1/2013 of 11 July 2013, a tariff of 
229.50 forints/MJ/hour/year, identical to the regulated tariff, was applied as from 
1 July 2014 onwards. 
According to amendment No 6 […] to Contract II, which was made on 30 June 
2015, given that the amount of the increased individual tariff calculated on the 
basis of the regulated tariff for the previous period was higher than the regulated 
tariffs in force as from 1 July 2015 and as from 1 October 2015 laid down in 
Annex 2 to MEKH Decision 1/2013 of 11 July 2013, a tariff of 229.68 
forints/MJ/hour/year was applied from 1 July 2015 and a tariff of 746.09 
forints/MJ/hour/year from 1 October 2015. These tariffs were identical to the 
regulated tariffs. 
According to amendment No 7 […] to Contract II, which was made in November 
2016, given that the amount of the increased individual tariff calculated on the 
basis of the regulated tariff for the previous period was lower ([Global NRG 
business secret] forints/MJ/hour/year) than the regulated tariff, the calculated tariff 
was applied as from 1 October 2016. 
According to amendment No 8 […] to Contract II, which was made on 1 October 
2017, given that the amount of the increased individual tariff calculated on the 
basis of the tariff for the previous period was higher than the regulated tariff in 
force as from 1 October 2017 laid down in Annex 1 to MEKH Decision 13/2016 
of 20 December 2016, a tariff of 740.02 forints/MJ/hour/year, identical to the 
regulated tariff, was applied as from 1 October 2017. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 5. 2024 – CASE C-369/24 
 
8  
According to amendment No 9 […] to Contract II, which was made on 1 October 
2018, given that the amount of the increased individual tariff calculated on the 
basis of the tariff for the previous period was higher than the regulated tariff in 
force as from 1 October 2018 laid down in Annex 1 to MEKH Decision 13/2016 
of 20 December 2016, a tariff of 708.24 forints/MJ/hour/year, identical to the 
regulated tariff, was applied as from 1 October 2018. 
In view of the legislative changes resulting from the commencement of the 
implementation of the TAR NC Regulation and affecting the transmission tariff 
system, the second applicant did not enter into any subsequent amendments to 
Contract II. Since 1 October 2019 it has been making payments to the system 
operator while reserving its rights. 
9 Thus, the applicants have been subject to the official regulated network use tariff 
from 1 July 2012 until 30 September 2016 and thereafter from 1 October 2017. 
10 The defendant set the reference price methodology for the price regulation cycle 
from 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2025 in its decision […] of 25 October 
2022 (in the context of the repeat procedure that constitutes the subject matter of 
the dispute before the referring court). According to the reasoning stated in that 
decision, the exemption provided for in Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation 
does not apply to the applicants’ long-term contracts. This exemption does not 
apply, first, because the tariff set in those contracts does not vary solely as a result 
of indexation. In addition to application of the methodology used to determine the 
indexed tariff, the amount of the official network use tariff is also taken into 
account, and that latter tariff is the one that is applied if it is lower. The exemption 
does not apply, second, because, in order to determine the official tariff prior to 
the entry into force of the TAR NC Regulation the defendant authority not only 
used indexation but also other methodologies and thus took into account, for 
example, new capacity bookings and the revenues derived from those bookings, 
and the internal rate of return. The amount of the official tariff published in the 
tariff orders was not therefore determined by indexation alone. In the vast 
majority of cases, the network use tariffs set for each gas year were not the 
indexed contractual tariffs, but rather the official tariffs. It is also clear from the 
contract amendments that it is not the initial contractual fixed price that is indexed 
each year, but the value from the previous period, which takes into account the 
official prices. Article 35(1) of the CN TAR Regulation only applies to contracts 
under which the parties, irrespective of any control, update the tariff from one 
year to the next through indexation alone. 
11 The applicants have challenged the defendant’s decision, seeking the annulment 
of that decision and an order that the defendant hold a new procedure. The 
defendant contends that the action should be dismissed. […] [Considerations of 
national procedural law] 
MET MAGYARORSZÁG AND GLOBAL NRG ROM 
 
9 
Grounds for the referral for a preliminary ruling and arguments of the 
parties 
12 The referring court, as the administrative court with jurisdiction to review the 
decision of the national regulatory authority, is examining – as a necessary 
question for a decision on the merits of this case – whether the exemption 
provided for in Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation is applicable to the 
applicants’ long-term contracts. 
13 The Hungarian version of Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation differs from 
the English, German and French versions (the court has not examined other 
language versions). 
14 The applicants submit that their long-term contracts fulfil the two conditions for 
exemption laid down in Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation, since, on the 
one hand, those long-term contracts were concluded on 20 October 2008, and thus 
before 6 April 2017, and, on the other hand, the contractual price determined in 
the long-term contracts only varies as a result of indexation, without exceeding the 
amount of that indexation. 
The applicants point out that, in the light of paragraph 18 of the judgment of the 
Court of Justice in Case C283/81, CILFIT (EU:C:1982:335), the Hungarian 
language version is also authentic and their long-term contracts comply with that 
version, as the amount of the contractual tariffs does not vary above the amount of 
the indexation. As specified on page 24 of the Implementation Document for the 
Network Code on Harmonised Transmission Tariff Structures for Gas (‘the 
implementation document’), Second Edition (revised), published by the European 
Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (‘ENTSO’), contracts where 
indexation is applied are also considered to be ‘fixed payable price’ contracts, 
which means that a fixed price does not imply that the previously fixed price must 
remain unchanged. The concept of indexation also includes the case where the 
initial price changes automatically according to a formula stated in the contract to 
take account of both inflation and the official tariff. According to Article 104(7) of 
the Natural gas supply law, they had to apply a limitation in the form of a 
maximum tariff, namely a price higher than the official tariff could not be validly 
stipulated in the contract. The official maximum tariff does not preclude price 
variation through indexation, and that fact does not mean that the contract is not a 
contract subject to indexation. The subsequent amendments to the long-term 
contracts did not affect the price-setting mechanism, but merely stated the tariff 
plus inflation and the official tariff, and indicated which was the lower of the two, 
thus establishing the exact amount of the automatic tariff modification. Therefore, 
the price mechanism established in long-term contracts, in combination with the 
cap consisting of the official tariff, also falls within the concept of indexation. 
According to the applicants, their long-term contracts are fixed-price contracts 
subject to indexation. Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation gives effect to the 
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The aim of this provision is 
to ensure that the entry into force of the TAR NC Regulation does not adversely 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 5. 2024 – CASE C-369/24 
 
10  
affect entities that entered into long-term contracts prior to the Regulation being 
introduced. It is clear that the intention of the European legislator could not have 
been to exclude, as a matter of principle, Hungarian contracts – namely those 
falling within the scope of the Natural gas supply law – from the possibility of 
exemption provided for in Article 35 of the TAR NC Regulation. 
15 The defendant argues that Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation should be 
interpreted by comparing the different language versions, and the English, 
German and French versions provide that the exemption only applies to contracts 
with tariff levels that vary solely as a result of indexation. 
It is clear from Article 3(22) and (26) of the TAR NC Regulation that the price set 
in the long-term contracts – which, in addition to indexation, also includes a 
maximum price – does not fulfil the strict criteria of a fixed price and that 
therefore the applicants’ long-term contracts are not fixed-price contracts subject 
to indexation in the strict sense, but rather the tariff set in those contracts clearly 
constitutes a variable (floating) price. Thus, the applicants’ long-term contracts, 
which contain a variable price, do not fall under the exemption rule provided for 
in Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation. Page 150 of the ENTSO 
implementation document states the following: ‘Type: only fixed price contracts 
or capacity bookings under such contracts qualify, not floating price contracts 
since their signatories foresaw future price changes’. The description published in 
that implementation document does not include contracts where the capacity tariff 
levels are not determined or modified exclusively through indexation, and where, 
conversely, the tariff levels to be paid are affected by other elements in addition to 
indexation. 
The applicants’ long-term contracts do not fulfil the requirement laid down in 
Article 35 of the TAR NC Regulation. First, the subsequent indexation of the 
initial price does not take place systematically and, second, the annual 
determination of the official tariff that replaces the indexed price took into account 
aspects other than indexation. Moreover, for several periods, the tariff to be paid 
under the contract was not the indexed tariff but rather the official tariff, and, 
furthermore, from the time that the official tariff was included in the contract for 
the first time, it was no longer the initial tariff that was being indexed but the 
value of the official tariff that replaced it. 
Relevant legal provisions 
16 Provisions of EU law 
– Article 3(22) and (26) of the TAR NC Regulation 
– Article 6(3) of the TAR NC Regulation 
– Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation 
MET MAGYARORSZÁG AND GLOBAL NRG ROM 
 
11 
Provisions of national law 
– Article 104(7) of the Natural gas supply law: ‘A price higher than the official 
price may not be validly stipulated in the contract. If the parties have not agreed 
a price and there is an official price in force for the product or service, that 
official price shall apply. The official price shall also apply where the parties 
have agreed a different price that is contrary to the law or the decision 
establishing the official price’. 
Presentation of the grounds for the request for a preliminary ruling 
17 Under Article 6(3) of the TAR NC Regulation, ‘the same reference price 
methodology shall be applied to all entry and exit points in a given entry-exit 
system subject to the exceptions set out in Articles 10 and 11’. 
18 The Hungarian version of Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation reads as 
follows: ‘Ez a rendelet nem érinti azon szállítási díjak szintjét, amelyek 2017. 
április 6. előtt kötött szerződésekből vagy kapacitáslekötésekből erednek, 
amennyiben a szerződésekben vagy kapacitáslekötésekben nem irányozták elő a 
szállítási kapacitásdíjak és/vagy mennyiségarányos díjak szintjének az esetleges 
indexálás mértekét meghaladó változását’. [ 1] 
19 The English version of Article 35(1) of the same regulation, for its part, reads as 
follows: ‘This Regulation shall not affect the levels of transmission tariffs 
resulting from contracts or capacity bookings concluded before 6 April 2017 
where such contracts or capacity bookings foresee no change in the levels of the 
capacity – and/or commodity-based transmission tariffs except for indexation, if 
any.’ The French version of the same provision reads as follows: ‘Le présent 
règlement n’affecte pas les niveaux des tarifs de transport résultant de contrats ou 
de réservations de capacité conclus avant le 6 avril 2017, lorsque ces contrats ou 
réservations de capacité ne prévoient aucun changement dans les niveaux des 
tarifs de transport fondés sur la capacité et/ou sur la quantité de gaz transitée en 
dehors de l’indexation, le cas échéant.’ 
The German version has the following wording: ‘Diese Verordnung lässt die 
Höhe der Fernleitungsentgelte im Rahmen von Verträgen oder 
Kapazitätsbuchungen unberührt, die vor dem 6. April 2017 geschlossen bzw. 
vorgenommen wurden, wenn diese Verträge oder Kapazitätsbuchungen keine 
Änderung in der Höhe der Kapazitäts- und/oder Arbeitsentgelte mit Ausnahme 
einer etwaigen Indexierung vorsehen.’ 
20 Under Article 3(22) of the TAR NC Regulation, the ‘fixed payable price’ means 
the ‘price calculated in accordance with Article 24(b) where the reserve price is 
 
1 The part of the provision that raises difficulties in terms of interpretation can be found in the 
expression used at the end of the provision, which could be translated as ‘changes that exceed 
the amount [or level] of any indexation’. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 5. 2024 – CASE C-369/24 
 
12  
not subject to any adjustments’. And according to Article 3(26), the ‘floating 
payable price’ means the ‘price calculated in accordance with Article 24(a) where 
the reserve price is subject to adjustments such as revenue reconciliation, 
adjustment of the allowed revenue or adjustment of the forecasted contracted 
capacity’. 
21 On the basis of the above provisions, it is not disputed that the applicants 
concluded the long-term contract before 6 April 2017, and thus one condition for 
the application of Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation is fulfilled. However, 
compliance with the second requirement of that provision requires further 
examination. 
22 In its judgment in Case C283/81, CILFIT (EU:C:1982:335), the Court of Justice 
held in paragraph 18 that ‘to begin with, it must be borne in mind that community 
legislation is drafted in several languages and that the different language versions 
are all equally authentic. An interpretation of a provision of community law thus 
involves a comparison of the different language versions’. 
23 If the Hungarian version of Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation is taken into 
account, it follows that the exception rule contained in that article concerns 
contracts where the price determined can only vary on the basis of indexation, up 
to a maximum of the amount calculated as a result of such indexation, but not 
exceeding that amount. It is possible that the applicants’ contracts meet this 
requirement, as they did not foresee in these contracts any change in the levels of 
the capacity-based transmission tariffs beyond the value of any indexation of 
those tariffs. In other words, if the indexed contractual tariff, calculated according 
to the formula laid down in the long-term contracts, is higher than the official 
network use tariff established in the tariff order in force at that time, the maximum 
official tariff will apply, and that will be either equal to the tariff calculated by 
indexation or lower than that tariff. Therefore, no tariff higher than the tariff 
calculated by indexation applies. 
24 However, if we read the English, German and French versions of Article 35(1) of 
the TAR NC Regulation, the question arises as to whether the criterion of ‘no 
change […] except for indexation’ is fulfilled for long-term contracts in which: 
– the tariff is not changed by indexation alone, but also takes into account the 
amount of the official network use tariff, which is the tariff applied if it is 
lower; 
– the applicants and the system operator have a legal obligation to take into 
account the official tariff, which would be mandatory even if they had not 
included it in their contracts; 
– in order to determine the official tariff prior to the entry into force of the TAR 
NC Regulation, the defendant authority not only considered indexation but also 
used other criteria and took into account, for example, new short-term capacity 
booking contracts and the revenues derived from those contracts, and the 
MET MAGYARORSZÁG AND GLOBAL NRG ROM 
 
13 
internal rate of return. The amount of the official tariff published in the tariff 
orders was not therefore determined by indexation alone; 
– it is not the first initial fixed contractual tariff that is the subject of subsequent 
indexation, and nor is it therefore the tariff indexed on the basis of the tariff 
determined under the basic contract that is compared with the current official 
tariff, but rather the values corresponding to the previous periods that took into 
account the official tariffs. Therefore, once the official tariff is included in the 
contract for the first time, the initial tariff is no longer indexed but, rather, the 
value of the official tariff that replaced that initial tariff; 
– the variation in the contractual tariff is based, on the one hand, on the consumer 
price index published by the national statistics office and, on the other hand, on 
the official tariffs, and both factors are independent of the contracting parties. 
25 As specified on page 150 of the ENTSO implementation document, fixed-price 
contracts fall within the scope of Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation, and the 
legislature’s intention was to exclude existing fixed-price contracts from the new 
legislation, ensuring respect for the principles of legal certainty and legitimate 
expectations. That document also notes that some Member States have existing 
contracts that fix capacity- and/or commodity-based transmission tariffs for their 
entire duration, except for regular indexation. In such cases, the capacity-based 
transmission tariffs established in such contracts are not subject to any changes in 
the regulatory framework if they set (i) the exact initial level or (ii) the exact 
initial level and the indexation formula. According to page 24 of the 
implementation document, a price that only varies as a result of indexation is also 
a ‘fixed payable price’. Moreover, it can be inferred from all the language 
versions that variations that are a consequence of indexation are permissible and 
that circumstance therefore does not exclude the applicability of Article 35(1) of 
the TAR NC Regulation to existing contracts. 
26 The referring court also considers a contract that sets a transmission tariff subject 
to variation as a result of indexation alone to be a fixed-price contract and 
therefore to fall within the scope of the exception rule contained in Article 35(1) 
of the TAR NC Regulation. 
27 However, in view of the circumstances set out above, it is unclear whether the 
price in a contractual structure such as that at issue in the present case can be 
considered as varying as a result of indexation alone. It is also unclear whether the 
application of Article 35(1) of the TAR NC Regulation can be excluded by the 
circumstance that the parties are required to take into account the official price 
rules and that in certain cases they have to apply the maximum official tariff 
instead of the contractual tariff, with the effect that in the following period it is 
this official tariff that is indexed. 
28 In the light of the above, the requirement concerning the variation of tariffs 
requires a more detailed interpretation, for which the Court of Justice has 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 5. 2024 – CASE C-369/24 
 
14  
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the referring court seeks the Court of Justice’s 
interpretation and guidance as to whether the exemption from application of the 
TAR NC Regulation also covers the long-term capacity booking contracts 
concluded before 2017, in which the pricing clauses did not provide for the 
capacity- and/or commodity-based transmission tariff determined at the time the 
contract was concluded to vary exclusively according to a pre-determined formula 
based on the consumer price index established by the national statistics office, but 
rather – by virtue of a mandatory provision of national law – applied the official 
network use tariff instead of the calculated tariff, wherever the former was lower, 
the official tariff being the tariff that the parties now index in the following period 
(that tariff being determined by the authority taking into account not only the 
indexation but also the new short-term capacity booking contracts concluded for a 
given network interconnection pipeline and the revenue derived from those 
contracts, and the internal rate of return). Therefore, in the context of the 
interpretation of the condition relating to the variation of tariffs, it is necessary – 
in order to give a decision on the merits of the case in the present dispute – to 
make a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary 
ruling. 
29 […] 
30 […] 
31 […] [Considerations of national procedural law] 
Budapest, 13 May 2024. 
[…] [signatures]