Hungarian energy group MOL has intensified its criticism of Croatia’s oil pipeline operator JANAF, claiming that transit charges on the Croatian route far exceed comparable European benchmarks. The dispute has resurfaced at a time of heightened concern over potential supply disruptions linked to instability in the Middle East.
In a detailed public statement, MOL argued that JANAF’s current pricing structure places a significant burden on crude oil transport. According to the company, fees charged by the Croatian operator are more than triple those applied by the TAL pipeline system, which transports oil from the Italian port of Trieste toward Central Europe. MOL also contends that Croatian transit costs surpass those on the Ukrainian segment by more than 50%, despite the extraordinary operational challenges posed by the ongoing war in Ukraine.
The Hungarian company further pointed to structural cost differences between supply routes. Oil delivered via Ukraine is transported overland directly from producing companies without additional maritime expenses. By contrast, crude shipped through the Croatian port of Omisalj arrives by sea from exporting countries such as Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, and Norway. This, MOL says, adds an estimated 20–25 dollars per ton in shipping expenses before pipeline transit fees are even applied.
MOL maintains that these additional logistical costs amplify what it describes as already disproportionate pipeline fees. The company claims that since 2022, following the outbreak of war in Ukraine, JANAF has raised its transport rates by more than 70%, while other service providers have not introduced comparable increases. It argues that transport charges should be evaluated on a standardized per-100-kilometer basis to ensure fair comparison across routes.
MOL also highlighted contractual concerns. The company stated that no valid long-term agreement is currently in force between the two parties, meaning oil deliveries are proceeding without a formally regulated framework. While MOL says it remains open to reaching a new arrangement, it accuses JANAF of leveraging its position by failing to align its fees with industry norms and by not factoring in the extra maritime transport costs associated with the Croatian route.
Another point of contention involves dispute resolution. According to MOL, a proposed new contract would shift jurisdiction to Croatian law and courts in Zagreb, replacing the previously applied Austrian legal framework and arbitration venue in Vienna. The Hungarian company has indicated that such a change is unacceptable under the current circumstances.
The disagreement underscores broader tensions over regional energy security and infrastructure costs, particularly as geopolitical uncertainty continues to influence supply chains and pricing dynamics across Europe.
