This is foreign affairs but also energy.

Ukrainian forces attacked French oil pipeline 3 times recently, and the last one was very serious. This pipeline is supplying member states.

European Member States and the Commission itself pledged in writing in January that it

would take actions against attacks like this responsible for the energy supply from Member states.

However, not too much happened in the last few days or weeks.

Only the Commission said that neither Hungary or Slovakia is in danger of supply.

As all these Member States have the required stockpile of oil and petroleum derivatives from 90 days,

so my question is why does the Commission think that the series

of attacks on friendship pipeline does not endanger the EU's energy supply?

And also why it doesn't keep its own commitment from January,

why the European Commission is silent.

And also I would like some reaction if it is possible the Hungarian Foreign Ministers, Mr. Peter Ciao's recent statements.

He said he is going to or the Hungarian government is going to

ban and the Ukrainian military unit leader to enter Hungary and the Schengen zone.

And also he also stated that there is a coordinated because it's different,

different topics too long.

Let's tackle them one by 11 2nd.

Eva on the first question, and let me disagree, it's I don't agree that we have not.

Been active in the sense, but so this is on Druzba pipeline and we

were absolutely not silent because we were closely monitoring the situation with the Druzba pipeline.

We were in touch with Hungary and with Slovakia.

We were obviously assessing the situation all the time.

And we have also received a letter from Hungary and Slovakia,

and we will reply to this letter in due time.

What is important is the energy security for us,

and this has not been affected.

I repeat, it has not been affected the energy security of the European Union.

So, the supply is slowly getting to be resumed for both for both

countries and because we also have tools how to deal with such situations.

And if I can add in the comments we have made publicly, at least to those who had asked the question in the previous days,

we have indeed confirmed that, well, maintaining energy supply is paramount in our opinion.

And critical infrastructure should, in our view, be protected by all parties.

Security of supply is a priority for the Commission,

and this is why we are in constant contact with our Member States to ensure it.

With these considerations in mind,

this is why all efforts to reach a just

and lasting peace for Ukraine are even more important. You have a follow up. Go ahead.

What would practically do the Commission in order to protect this critical infrastructure

in the future because now there is no oil flowing towards the west.

EU Member States and as you mentioned, the reserves the stockpile,

but they can run out how it can be filled

if there is no physically no oil supply for these countries.

As far as I am informed from the reports that we have,

the flow of the oil has been resumed, so the flow. Goes through the pipelines.

We have our legislation, its EU Oil Stocks Directive, and this requires to maintain emergency stocks of crude oil or petroleum equal to at least 90 days of net imports,

so we are very well covered, as you can see in this case,

it was not even necessary to use it. Other questions on this, go ahead.

I think it's daffod, but I don't dare saying names.

If, if, so you gave a sort of general,

it's OK for what I believe is the EU in

terms of the oil stocks directive and the 90 days obligation.

I was just wondering in terms of the member states affected Slovakia,

Hungary, can you give that same commitment, sorry, that same.

Assessment that there's no threat to security of supply at that national level.

And then my colleague referred to a January commitment, sorry, if you could sort of just refresh our minds.

I mean,

I don't understand that commitment as being breached by Ukraine's actions. Yeah, thank you.

So, regarding Slovakia and Hungary, as I said, we are also in touch with the member states because we have received the letter that was addressed to us and it came from the Energy ministers of both countries,

so we are also discussing with the member states and we

will reply to this letter in due time regarding the January incident.

I would need to check because I'm replacing Anar Kaiser, so I don't have more details on this.

Indeed, but I think that there is a general commitment by the commission to work with the member

states to ensure energy supply and a general call

to protect energy infrastructure by all parties and stands.

I don't have memory of the specific incident either.

Perhaps Eva can come back to you on this later.

Other questions for Eva on this matter.

Sandor, is it on this from remote? This Yes, it's on this. Hello.

So I would like to understand if was the commission in touch with Ukraine on this

matter and is the commission calling Ukraine or whoever attacked this pipeline to stop these attacks?

So basically I would like to understand.

Is this oil imports towards the European Union on this particular

Russian pipeline is a priority for the European Commission or not? Thank you. You take a second.

Yeah, maybe we will need to repeat the second. I'm not sure I understood it. I'm afraid.

Sandra, can you repeat your second question? Apologies.

Yes, basically, I would like to understand if, you know, these oil imports towards the European Union on this particular pipeline,

Drujba was a sort of priority of the European Commission.

You would like to Maintain it or you know, if these imports seize this, this is according to the, to the,

to the goals of the European Commission in a way because you want to phase out Russian fossil fuels anyway,

so this is the question. Thanks, perhaps let me start.

So we are in constant contact with our Ukrainian partners on, all, all matters.

As I have said that we have, reiterated the relevance of maintaining energy supply.

And the call to all parties to protect critical infrastructure, of course, as I was saying also peace efforts are even more essential with these considerations in mind, as adjusting lasting peace to Ukraine is also of, of, of,

of, of impact and relevance, for, for these matters, I believe, but if I can confirm, I mean,

indeed we have a commitment or an intention and

a plan to phase out from Russian fossil fuels, but.

It is a plan with different steps and built in

a way to ensure at all times energy security and supply.

So of course the different steps are to be taken after

appropriate preparations and in coordination with the member states, companies, etc. Etc.

But Eva, if you want to add, I think there is not much to add because

Arianna has already pointed out that the critical infrastructure should be protected by all the parties.

This is what we have said already.

Energy security was not affected, but energy security is paramount and it's crucial for us,

so it doesn't mean that Druzhba would be would be a different case.

Indeed and we are committed to energy security at all times and ensuring it and this is what we work towards with with our member

states with the long term objective of phasing out imports of oil from from Russia,

but as I was saying with the appropriate timings and preparations.

Other questions for Eva since she's here with me. Not the case. Thanks, Eva.

Other questions for us today on different matters. Yes, go ahead. Yeah.