Subscribe to our social channels to get the latest news about Hungary!
ZH
IT
DE
Hungary’s fuel crisis deepens: independent petrol stations warn of protests, shortages and collapse
Hungary’s fuel market is under severe strain, with independent petrol station operators warning that conditions may be “worse than in 2022”, when price caps pushed the sector to the brink of collapse.
Despite government efforts to avoid repeating past mistakes, industry players say the current system of “protected” prices is squeezing margins to unsustainable levels. Many smaller, often family-run filling stations now fear they may be forced into drastic action, including protests, supply restrictions or even closures.
According to market representatives, frustration across the sector is reaching a breaking point.
Lessons not learned from the 2022 price cap crisis
According to G7’s report, the current tensions echo the chaotic period of 2021–2022, when Hungary introduced a fuel price cap of HUF 480 per litre. At the time, wholesale prices were not regulated, leaving smaller stations selling fuel at a loss for weeks.
As global oil prices surged following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, the situation became untenable. Hungary’s artificially low prices triggered fuel tourism, with foreign drivers and transit trucks flocking to Hungarian stations, further increasing losses for retailers.
The government eventually intervened by limiting access to the capped prices and regulating wholesale costs. While this prevented widespread bankruptcies, it left many operators with little to no profit margin.
Promises of support yet to materialise
The latest measures were designed to avoid these pitfalls. Authorities pledged that fuel released from Hungary’s strategic reserves would be sold below the protected price, allowing retailers to maintain a modest margin.
In theory, this would provide around HUF 35 per litre in cost relief, roughly covering operational expenses.
In practice, however, operators say they have yet to see any of this discounted fuel. Even if it arrives, estimates suggest it will only account for 25–30% of total supply, leaving average margins at just HUF 8–10 per litre: far below sustainable levels.
Crucially, there are also no clear rules on how this cheaper fuel will be distributed, raising fears that larger chains may prioritise their own networks, leaving independent stations with limited access.
A structurally weakened market
The sector’s vulnerability has been building for years. After the price cap was lifted, companies briefly recovered by increasing margins, but by 2024, profitability began to decline again.
Market dynamics have shifted significantly, with dominant players such as MOL Group able to offset retail losses through refining and wholesale operations. Smaller competitors lack this flexibility, forcing them to follow low retail pricing without alternative revenue streams.
As a result, independent stations say their margins have been steadily eroding, even before the latest oil price shock triggered new government intervention.
Diesel dependency deepens the crisis
The situation is particularly acute in the diesel segment, which accounts for a significantly larger share of sales, especially for smaller stations serving agricultural and logistics customers.
While some margin remains on petrol sales, diesel (where most of the volume lies) offers little to no profit under current conditions. Unlike in 2022, businesses are now also subject to the protected pricing system, eliminating another potential source of revenue.
Regional comparison: Hungary falls behind
Despite the introduction of “protected” prices, Hungary is no longer among the cheapest fuel markets in the region, Népszava reported.
Recent data shows that Hungarian fuel prices have slipped in regional rankings, with countries such as Slovenia, Slovakia and Croatia now offering more competitive petrol prices.
Meanwhile, the gap between protected domestic prices (around HUF 595–615) and actual market prices continues to widen, driven by rising global oil costs linked to tensions in the Middle East.
Across Europe, governments are also intervening. Austria is preparing tax cuts and margin caps, while neighbouring countries have introduced fuel purchase limits to prevent shortages and fuel tourism.
Protests, closures or rationing on the horizon
With no immediate resolution in sight, independent petrol station operators are considering a range of drastic measures.
These include:
- Organising nationwide protests
- Temporarily closing stations
- Introducing strict fuel limits, potentially as low as 2 litres per transaction
While legal obligations may prevent mass closures, operators say similar pressure could be applied through rationing.
Many believe time is running out, not only financially, but politically. Some fear that after the upcoming elections, their ability to influence policy will diminish further.
If you missed it:
Uncertain outlook for supply and stability
For now, the government insists that releasing strategic reserves will prevent shortages. However, industry insiders warn that without meaningful margins and fair distribution mechanisms, supply stability cannot be guaranteed.
The coming weeks will be critical. If tensions escalate and independent stations follow through on planned actions, Hungary could once again face disruptions reminiscent of the 2022 fuel crisis—only this time, the sector says, the foundations are even weaker.
The 2022 Hungarian fuel price cap serves as a stark economic lesson on how price ceilings can dismantle supply chains. By fixing the price of petrol and diesel at 480 forints ($1.22) per liter while global oil prices skyrocketed, the government created a market environment where selling fuel in Hungary became a guaranteed loss for importers.
Consequently, foreign wholesalers—who were responsible for roughly 30% of the country’s supply—simply stopped shipping fuel into the country. This left the domestic market reliant almost entirely on the state-owned energy company, MOL, which could not physically produce enough fuel to meet the nation’s demand.
The resulting shortages led to panic buying, long queues at pumps, and forced rationing, while hundreds of independent gas stations faced bankruptcy because they were legally compelled to sell fuel for less than the wholesale purchase price.
By December 2022, the supply chain had buckled under the pressure, forcing the government to abruptly remove the cap to lure importers back. The experiment demonstrated that while price controls may offer short-term political relief, they often result in long-term scarcity, proving that legislation cannot simply override the fundamental costs of international commodities.
“Peace!” “No War!”
Orban with his allegiance to Russia, Putin with his war in Ukraine and Trump with his war in Iran have brought this to you Hungarians. Always remember that.
As usual the grumpy old man has just woken up..
This too shall pass and Hungary will survive and thrive as it has done for a 1000 years or more. What won’t survive is the EU but let’s hang on in there for as long as possible. Viva Hungary.
🍻🤦🤣🤣🤣
Even slaves survive but they are not necessarily living the life they would want. If your only goal is “survival” Russia has a system all set up for you where you can survive as a slave. If the EU ended Hungary would lose its’ “sugar daddy” and the days of free money would be over. What is bizarre is how these Fidesz people can preach hatred for the EU and call for its’ destruction but in complete contradiction would never leave it because they benefit from it. There is no logic to their reasoning.
Some rave about the paradisiacal Russia (though without emigrating), others just want to get away!
Among Russian residents in late 2025 – early 2026, interest in the topic of emigration has sharply increased, particularly against the background of large-scale Internet shutdowns. This is evidenced by Google Trends data, Russian opposition publication “Verstka” writes.
According to the analysis, the number of queries “How to leave Russia” or “Leave Russia” rose to 75 points out of 100 in January 2026, and in March – to 88 points.
And what is Big Brother doing? This is certainly one way to handle other people’s money.
After five legal defeats, the Trump administration is turning to money instead of the courts: Nearly $1 billion is being sought to persuade the French energy company TotalEnergies to never build two wind farms on the East Coast.
Focus reports on tough times for Donald Trump’s campaign against offshore wind power: Just a few days ago, Vineyard Wind installed the last of its 62 turbines off the coast of Massachusetts. Shortly afterward, Revolution Wind announced that its turbines off Rhode Island were feeding electricity into the New England grid for the first time. The Trump administration had tried to block both projects for months with construction halts. However, the US president was unsuccessful in this endeavor in the federal courts.
Now, the White House appears to be pursuing a new strategy that marks a fundamental shift in policy.
As the “New York Times” reports, high-ranking government officials are working on settlement agreements that would bring the French energy giant TotalEnergies more than $928 million. In return, the company would permanently abandon two planned offshore wind farms: the “Attentive Energy” project off the coast of New York State and “Carolina Long Bay” off the coast of North Carolina.
The Department of the Interior would terminate the leases in federal waters, and the Department of Justice would make the payment. In return, TotalEnergies would abandon its wind energy plans and instead commit to investing in natural gas infrastructure in Texas, entirely in line with Trump’s energy policy.
The energy transition is at stake
Both projects are still in the early planning stages and are not yet under construction. Nevertheless, their dimensions would be considerable: Attentive Energy is designed for a capacity of up to 3 gigawatts, and Carolina Long Bay for more than 1 gigawatt. Attentive Energy could have supplied more than one million households in New York and New Jersey with electricity, and Carolina Long Bay around 300,000 households in North Carolina.
Legal failure forces a new approach
Why this billion-dollar raid on the public purse? The answer lies in a long series of defeats in federal courts.
Since Trump took office in January 2025, his administration has repeatedly attempted to halt the construction of offshore wind farms. On December 22, 2025, the Department of the Interior suspended the leases for all five major projects under construction on the East Coast: Vineyard Wind, Revolution Wind, Empire Wind 1, Sunrise Wind, and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind.
The justification given was a classified report from the Department of Defense, which allegedly classified the wind farms as a threat to national security. All five affected projects sued against the measure and obtained preliminary injunctions from federal courts allowing construction to resume.
Since Trump has so far failed to win over the courts, the US president is now apparently turning directly to the energy companies.
Experts are expressing concern. “It’s quite unusual for the government to make these expenditures, seemingly just because Trump dislikes offshore wind power,” John Leshy, who served as chief legal officer at the Department of the Interior under President Clinton, told The New York Times.
Whether TotalEnergies will accept the offer remains to be seen. If the company rejects the deal, the leases would still be terminated, according to documents obtained by The New York Times. The government claims it can terminate the leases at its own discretion, for example, on the grounds of national security. If TotalEnergies were to reject the deal, it would trigger a costly legal battle that both sides would likely prefer to avoid.
But Trump will certainly have to chip in a lot of taxpayer money. Not only is the man starting a crazy war, he’s also throwing around taxpayer money like it’s a money tree.
Reuters reports that the family of a British couple imprisoned in Iran said on Friday that the two were being used as “human shields” in the US-Israeli war against Iran and accused the British government of making no progress toward their release.
Lindsay and Craig Foreman were sentenced to 10 years in prison last year after Iran accused them of espionage, charges they deny.
How Trump’s stated reasons, goals and timeline for Iran war have shifted
Reuters reports how Trump described his war goals and timeline:
FEBRUARY 28: CALLS FOR IRANIANS TO TOPPLE THEIR GOVERNMENT
The Iranian people should “take over” governance of their country, Trump said in a video on social media as the U.S. and Israel launched their attacks. “It will be yours to take,” he added. “This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
Trump described the attacks as “major combat operations.”
FEBRUARY 28: WEAKEN IRAN’S MILITARY, INFLUENCE
Trump said Washington would deny Iran the ability to have a nuclear weapon, although Tehran has insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Iran does not have nuclear weapons while the United States does. Israel is also widely believed to be the only Middle Eastern country with nuclear weapons.
Trump insisted he would end what he described as Tehran’s ballistic missile threat. “We’re going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground,” he said. “We’re going to annihilate their navy.”
Trump claimed Iran’s long range missiles “can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland.”
His remarks echoed the case of President George W. Bush for the Iraq war, which had false claims. Neither experts nor U.S. intelligence support Trump’s assertions and both assess that Iran’s ballistic missile program was years from threatening the U.S. homeland.
MARCH 2: SHIFTING TIMELINE
Trump said the war was projected to last four to five weeks but could go on longer.
“We’re already substantially ahead of our time projections. But whatever the time is, it’s okay. Whatever it takes,” Trump said at the White House. In a social media post, Trump said there was a “virtually unlimited supply” of U.S. munitions and that “wars can be fought ‘forever,’ and very successfully, using just these supplies.”
In a notification to Congress, Trump provided no timeline. Trump earlier told the Daily Mail the war could take “four weeks, or less,” then told The New York Times four to five weeks and subsequently said it could take longer.
MARCH 2: RUBIO SAYS U.S. ATTACKED IRAN BECAUSE ISRAEL DID
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Israel’s determination to attack Iran forced Washington to strike.
“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio said.
MARCH 3: TRUMP CONTRADICTS RUBIO
Trump said he ordered U.S. forces to join Israel’s attack on Iran because he believed Iran was about to strike first.
“I might have forced their (Israel’s) hand,” Trump said. “If we didn’t do it, they (Iran) were going to attack first.”
MARCH 4: CALL TO ‘DESTROY’ SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said the goal was to “destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure.”
MARCH 6: ‘UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER’ CALL
“There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,” Trump wrote on social media.
MARCH 8-11: JUST THE START BUT ALSO ‘PRETTY MUCH COMPLETE’
Hegseth told CBS News in an interview aired March 8 strikes on Iran were “only just the beginning.”
A day later, Trump told the same network “I think the war is very complete, pretty much.”
“We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough,” Trump told reporters later on the same day. When asked if the war was beginning or complete, he said: “Well, I think you could say both.”
On March 11, Trump again said he thought the U.S. had won but: “We’ve got to finish the job.”
MARCH 13: SOFTENS CALL FOR INTERNAL UPRISING
In a March 13 interview, Trump told Fox News the war will end “when I feel it in my bones.”
Trump softened his call for Iranians to topple their government. “So I really think that’s a big hurdle to climb for people that don’t have weapons,” Trump said.
MARCH 19: HEGSETH SAYS NO TIME FRAME
Hegseth said Washington was not setting a time frame for the war and Trump would decide when to stop.
“We wouldn’t want to set a definitive time frame,” the Pentagon chief said. “It will be at the president’s choosing, ultimately, where we say, ‘Hey, we’ve achieved what we need to.'”
MARCH 20: TRUMP CONSIDERS WINDING DOWN BUT NO CEASEFIRE
Trump posted on Truth Social that “we are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts” in the Iran war. Earlier in the day, Trump told reporters “I don’t want to do a ceasefire” when asked about the war.