The planned Serbia–Hungary oil pipeline project has encountered a new setback after a legal challenge was filed within the public procurement process, potentially delaying progress on the strategically important cross-border infrastructure.
According to Serbia’s Public Procurement Portal, a request for legal protection was submitted shortly after the state-owned operator Transnafta announced the selected companies for both construction works and technical supervision services. The latest objection specifically targets the contract for expert supervision of the project. Until the Commission for Protection of Rights in Public Procurement Procedures issues a ruling, details of the complaint and the identity of the applicant remain officially undisclosed.
Earlier this month, Transnafta selected a consortium to perform supervision duties under a contract worth approximately €4.7 million (including VAT). The winning group includes Project Biro Utiber, SGS, Petrol Projekt, and Preventiva 012, all of which will be responsible for technical oversight of the pipeline’s implementation.
Procurement records from 12 May show that two bids were submitted for the supervision contract. The competing offer came from a consortium led by Bureau Veritas Serbia, part of the French engineering and certification group Bureau Veritas. Although it is widely assumed that the unsuccessful bidder may have initiated the appeal, official confirmation will only be available once the regulatory authority publishes its decision.
In parallel, Transnafta has already awarded the main construction contract for the Serbia–Hungary oil pipeline. The contract was granted to a consortium led by MVM Juzna Bačka, with a total value of €123.5 million (excluding VAT). Under the agreement, MVM Juzna Bačka is responsible for approximately 43% of the project scope, including procurement of materials and equipment, engineering works, electrical installations, automation systems, telecommunications infrastructure, as well as selected civil and mechanical construction activities.
The legal dispute introduces additional uncertainty into the project timeline, as further progress may depend on the outcome of the procurement review process and any subsequent administrative decisions.
