Croatia’s Prime Minister, Andrej Plenković, has rejected assertions from Budapest that Hungary lacks viable alternatives to Russian crude because of insufficient capacity on the Adriatic pipeline operated by Croatia’s state firm JANAF.
Plenković said JANAF could supply all crude required by Hungary’s refineries, countering statements from Hungarian officials and oil company MOL that the Croatian route is a bottleneck.
Plenković’s intervention follows a renewed public dispute in recent weeks between MOL and JANAF over capacity and commercial terms. In September, JANAF said it had tested the pipeline section from Croatia’s Sisak terminal to the Hungarian border and was prepared “in technical, organisational or any other terms” to cover the annual crude needs of MOL’s Hungarian and Slovak refineries. Those plants are the Danube refinery at Százhalombatta and the Slovnaft refinery in Bratislava.
Capacity data published by industry sources indicate that JANAF can meet MOL’s combined demand. S&P Global Commodity Insights reported that JANAF can deliver up to 14.5 million tonnes per year to MOL, while MOL’s current contract for deliveries via the Adria connection amounts to about 2.1 million tonnes through 31 December 2025. JANAF has also stated it can increase supplies to MOL’s facilities as required.
MOL, for its part, has argued that while some Russian volumes could be replaced, the “capacity and JANAF’s ability to supply” the necessary crude are not proven to its satisfaction, and it has complained about the lack of long-term contracts. Coverage in late October noted Croatia’s position that JANAF’s capacity is sufficient, with MOL emphasising contractual and pricing concerns rather than pure pipeline limits.
The Croatian prime minister also questioned suggestions that Washington’s position validated Hungary’s case. On 7 November, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán met U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington. Following the talks, Budapest said the United States had granted an exemption from American sanctions targeting Russian oil and gas; U.S. officials have described the waiver as time-limited. Reuters and other outlets reported that the waiver was framed around one year, alongside a commitment by Hungary to purchase U.S. liquefied natural gas worth about $600 million.
The European Commission, asked about the U.S. decision, pointed out that Hungary has enjoyed an existing EU exemption for Russian pipeline crude since 2022, allowing continued imports via the Druzhba network. Brussels said that, irrespective of the U.S. waiver, Hungary’s imports under the EU regime are already permitted, underscoring that the EU’s oil embargo chiefly targets seaborne Russian crude.
As a comparator, Plenković referred to Serbia’s experience this autumn. U.S. sanctions that took full effect in October against NIS, Serbia’s Gazprom-linked oil company, halted JANAF’s shipments to the Pančevo refinery. Reuters reported that a crude cargo was blocked and that, absent new supplies, the refinery faced shutdown; Croatia’s operator confirmed it had stopped deliveries after a temporary U.S. licence expired. No broader exemptions have been announced for Serbia comparable to the waiver cited by Hungary.
The dispute over capacity and contracts comes as Hungary signals a potential shift in sourcing. In early November, MOL said it could replace most Russian crude if needed, including through the Croatian route, even as it continued to contest JANAF’s ability to guarantee the required flows under MOL’s preferred terms. The company has historically relied on Russia for the majority of its crude slate, and Budapest has argued that landlocked geography limits options. Croatia, however, maintains that the Adriatic system and its connections can provide sufficient non-Russian barrels to Százhalombatta and Bratislava.
Operationally, JANAF’s pipeline delivers crude from the Omišalj terminal on the island of Krk to refineries in the region, including onward links towards Hungary and Slovakia. The operator says it tested the key leg towards the Hungarian border in September and can meet annual requirements; separate industry assessments put the available throughput at levels consistent with MOL’s combined refining capacity, subject to crude grades and scheduling. The core points of contention now appear to be duration, pricing, and liability terms in any new supply contracts rather than the nominal hydraulic capacity.
The political backdrop is also relevant. Hungary’s reliance on Russian energy and its push for exemptions—now from both EU and U.S. regimes—have drawn criticism from several partners. At the same time, market conditions in Central Europe have tightened, with regional outages and sanction-related rerouting affecting crude and product logistics. Against that setting, Plenković’s assertion that JANAF can fully supply Hungary is intended to undercut the argument that there is no practical alternative to Russian crude.
Further talks between MOL and JANAF over contract structures, volumes and tariffs are expected. With the U.S. waiver reported as time-limited and the EU’s pipeline exemption already in place, the commercial resolution of the Croatia–Hungary oil route—rather than engineering constraints—may determine how quickly Budapest can shift away from Russian barrels at scale.
