Prime Minister Péter Magyar has accused Austria of complaining to Brussels over the emergency construction of a weir on the Danube near the Paks Nuclear Power Plant. Vienna, however, says it has not filed a formal complaint, while confirming that it has raised concerns about the project with Hungarian authorities and EU institutions.
Austria challenges Hungary over Paks project
A new dispute is emerging between Hungary and Austria over the controversial weir built on the Danube to help keep the Paks Nuclear Power Plant operating during periods of extremely low water levels.
Péter Magyar claimed on Wednesday that Austria had “filed a complaint against Hungary in Brussels” over the construction.
“The only reason why the Paks Nuclear Power Plant is currently able to operate without interruption is thanks to the weir that has been built,” the Hungarian prime minister said in a Facebook post. He then took a swipe at Austria, adding: “It would be nice if the Austrians were this active regarding the asbestos issue as well.”
Austria, however, disputes the description of its actions.
According to Hungarian news outlet Világgazdaság, Austria’s Ministry of Innovation, Mobility and Infrastructure told the APA news agency that it had not filed a complaint. The ministry did confirm that both the European Commission and the Budapest-based, non-EU Danube Commission are in direct contact with the relevant Hungarian authorities regarding the issue.
Why was the Paks weir built?
The dispute comes after an exceptionally difficult summer for Hungary’s only nuclear power plant. Record-low water levels in the Danube severely affected Paks, which relies on river water for cooling. At the height of the crisis, the plant was forced to reduce its output dramatically, and a near-total shutdown became a real possibility.
Hungary ultimately avoided a complete shutdown by keeping one turbine operating during the most critical period. The government then approved an emergency solution: the construction of a bottom weir on the Danube near Paks.
The structure was intended to raise water levels around the plant’s water intake and ensure that sufficient cooling water could continue to reach the facility even when the river level was exceptionally low. The measure was implemented at remarkable speed and helped Hungary navigate the immediate threat to the plant’s operation.
Paks has since returned to full capacity, making the emergency infrastructure particularly significant for Hungary’s energy security.
Austria says EU countries have raised concerns
Although Vienna says it did not formally lodge a complaint, Austria has clearly been involved in discussions about the project. The Austrian ministry said representatives of countries participating in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region had developed a joint position on the issue.
That position has already been sent to Hungarian Transport Minister Dávid Vitézy and Prime Minister Péter Magyar, according to the Austrian ministry.
The EU Strategy for the Danube Region was adopted in 2011 during Hungary’s presidency of the Council of the European Union. It brings together countries across the Danube region to address issues including transport, environmental protection, water management and economic development.
Importantly, however, the strategy is not legally binding. That means the existence of a joint position does not in itself amount to an EU legal procedure against Hungary.
Could Brussels launch proceedings against Hungary?
The European Commission is responsible for enforcing EU law. If Hungary were found to have breached binding EU legislation, the Commission could potentially launch an infringement procedure. Such a process generally begins with dialogue and formal requests for information before potentially escalating to legal action.
At present, however, the information available does not indicate that Austria has formally triggered such a procedure against Hungary. Instead, the Austrian government says it has communicated its concerns through the relevant European and regional channels. That distinction is important as the political row develops.
Magyar’s statement suggested that Austria had taken Hungary to Brussels over the project, while Vienna’s account describes discussions and a joint regional position rather than a formal complaint.
