1. Assessment of the paper:

1.	Academic relevance of the research problem (ОПК-4, ПКА-5)	
good, B (4.5)	The EU’s nature as an actor has been long debated but still presents complexities as to the assessment and forecast of its ability to act and efficiently achieve the results 
2.	Scholarly contribution by the author (ОПК-4, ПКА-2, ПКА-3, ПКА-5, ПКА-6, ПКП-9)	
satisfactory, D (3.5)	The contribution itself is not very clear due to the discrepancy among different parts of the study and to the insufficient correlation between the theoretical part, the method and the empirical study
3.	Appropriateness of the research objective, coherence of research objective and research tasks (ОПК-4, ПКА-2, ПКА-5, ПКА-6, ПКА-10, ПКП-9)	
good, C (4.0)	The research objective is set correctly; the research tasks are ok but they have not fully determined the sequence of the research and the logics of the study 
4.	Quality of the empirical scope and of the primary sources review
(ПКА-2, ПКА-7, ПКП-4)	satisfactory, D (3.5)	The knowledge about energy policy of the EU are quite patchy, there is no overall picture of it. Moreover, the analysis of sui generis nature of the EU is not applied consistently to all examined initiatives. 

5.	Comprehensiveness of secondary sources (academic literature) employed by the author (ПКА-2, ПКА-7)	
satisfactory, D (3.5).        Rather patchy, in my view, with bits and pieces not connected in a single logics of the research. I.e. the relevance of David Hume is not demonstrated while the works of A. Wendt are not really applied. There are plenty of studies of the EU’s energy policy which have not been used. 
6.	Adequacy of chosen research methods to the stated research objective and research tasks  
(ПКА-2, ПКА-8, ПКА-10) 	satisfactory, D (3.5) 	The relevance of the data envelop analysis is questionable; while it might show the efficiency of the policies examined, it does not demonstrate whether this efficiency is achieved due to the sui generis nature or any other factor (i.e. external threat). The methods are also not very adequate for constructivism, which was cited as one research guideline. 
7.	Correspondence of empirical results to the stated research objective and research tasks
(ОПК-7, ПКА-2, ПКА-3, ПКА-5, ПКА-6, ПКП-4, ПКП-9)	
satisfactory, D (3.5) 	See point 6 above
8.	Text formatting and editing  (ОПК-7, ПКА-7)	
excellent, A (5.0)	excellent
9.	Diligence, consistency, and responsibility demonstrated by the student when writing the paper (ОПК-7, УК-6)	
good, C (4.0)	Most of the work done in the last moment, which critically limited possibilities to rectify the deficiencies of the work.

Average grade:	 good, C (4.0)


2. Conclusion/Recommendations for the evaluation commission: the work is line with basic requirements that are set for these works; it deserves a good mark while its author deserves that the MA degree is awarded to him.

3. Recommended grade (in ECTS): good, C (4.0)