Gothenburg: Advocate General Athanasios Rantos has told the Court of Justice that the temporary solidarity contribution levied on the surplus profits of energy companies is consistent with EU law. His opinion, published on 22 October 2026, covers three joined cases and gives national tax authorities a strong signal ahead of the final judgment.
The joined cases are C-153/25 Acea Produzione and Others, C-358/24 Varo Energy Belgium and Others, and C-533/24 Vermilion Energy Ireland and Others. In each, companies in the fossil fuel sector challenged the way their national authorities applied the solidarity contribution, which Brussels created during the 2022 energy price crisis. The opinion is not binding on the judges, who deliberate separately, but the Court follows its advocates general in a large majority of cases.
The levy traces back to Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022, the emergency measure that asked member states to claw back part of the extraordinary profits earned by oil, gas, coal and refinery businesses. Under that text, the contribution applied to taxable profits in 2022 and 2023 that exceeded a 20 percent increase on the 2018 to 2021 average, at a rate of at least 33 percent. Several governments applied the scheme through domestic tax law, and the companies in these cases argue that the national versions went beyond what the regulation allowed or breached general principles of EU law.
Rantos disagrees. In the view summarised in the Court’s press release, the solidarity contribution fits within the legal basis the Council chose and respects the framework that the regulation set. The press release does not reproduce the full reasoning, so the finer points on proportionality and legal basis will only become clear when the Court publishes its judgment. Lawyers following the cases expect the ruling to turn on how far an emergency instrument can steer national tax design.
The stakes are considerable. Governments across the Union booked substantial revenue from the solidarity contribution and used part of it to support households and businesses facing high bills. A ruling against the levy could trigger refund claims and reopen budget plans in the member states concerned. A ruling in favour would settle the question for the 2022 and 2023 assessment years and confirm that the Council can adopt temporary profit-based measures under its emergency powers.
The opinion also lands in a wider debate about windfall measures. Energy ministers have discussed how to handle future price spikes, and some capitals favour permanent mechanisms rather than improvised levies. Clear case law on the 2022 solidarity contribution would shape any future design, because it would show how much room the Council has when it acts quickly in a crisis.
For now, the companies, the tax administrations in Italy, Belgium and Ireland and the Commission all wait for the judges. The solidarity contribution is already a closed chapter in legislative terms, yet this litigation shows it remains a live issue in court. Once the Court rules, the solidarity contribution will either stand as a precedent for emergency fiscal action or become a warning about its limits.
