Bucharest: The European Commission’s June infringement package has put two member states on notice that the slow business of writing EU energy rules into national law is no longer a problem the bloc is willing to overlook. On 4 June the Commission sent reasoned opinions to Hungary and Romania for failing to transpose the recast Energy Efficiency Directive, the second and most serious formal step before a case is referred to the Court of Justice.
The directive in question, adopted in 2023, is one of the pillars of the bloc’s plan to cut energy demand rather than simply clean up supply. It tightens the obligations on governments to drive down consumption across buildings, industry and the public sector, and it set member states a deadline of 11 October 2025 to notify their transposing measures. Months past that date, the Commission says neither Bucharest nor Budapest has communicated any measures at all, leaving a hole in the legal framework that is supposed to bind the entire single market to the same efficiency standards.
A reasoned opinion is more than a reminder. It gives the two capitals a fixed window, typically two months, to fall into line or explain themselves. If the Commission remains unsatisfied, the next stop is the Court of Justice, where a losing government can ultimately face financial penalties. The June package as a whole carried three energy-related reasoned opinions and a separate referral to the Court, a reminder that enforcement, not just legislation, is where much of the bloc’s climate ambition now lives or dies.
The political backdrop sharpens the picture. Energy efficiency is the least glamorous corner of climate policy, lacking the visible drama of wind farms or the headline appeal of subsidy schemes, yet it is arguably the cheapest tonne of carbon any government can avoid. Every delayed transposition means weaker obligations on landlords to renovate, looser targets for public buildings and slower progress on the demand reductions the bloc has promised its citizens and its international partners. For households facing volatile bills, the directive’s renovation and metering provisions are not abstractions; they determine how quickly the most wasteful buildings are fixed.
For Romania and Hungary, both of which have at various points bristled at the pace and cost of the bloc’s green agenda, the case is also a test of how far Brussels will press governments that drag their feet. Neither has signalled the directive is unworkable; the issue, at least formally, is silence rather than refusal. That makes the infringement procedure a relatively clean one, turning on the simple fact that the law was supposed to be on the books and is not.
Why it matters reaches beyond two countries. The credibility of the bloc’s efficiency targets depends on every member state pulling its weight, and a directive that exists in 25 capitals but not in two leaves a measurable gap in the collective effort. The coming weeks will show whether the threat of the Court is enough to break the logjam, or whether two of the bloc’s eastern members are prepared to let the dispute escalate.




