EuGH · C-187/25 · 22.10.2026 · ECLI:EU:C:2026:900
Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber)
22 October 2026 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Internal market in electricity – Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 – Emergency intervention to address high energy prices – Article 6(1) – Article 8(1)(a) and Article 8(2) – Cap on market revenues obtained by producers of electricity using certain energy sources – National cap lower than EUR 180 per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity produced – Whether permissible – Differentiated cap depending on whether or not, on 8 October 2022, there was a contract for compensation by way of premiums binding the relevant producer – Proportionality and non-discrimination – Lack of sufficient information – Inadmissibility )
In Case C‑187/25,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv (Administrative Court, Plovdiv, Bulgaria), made by decision of 7 March 2025, received at the Court on 7 March 2025, in the proceedings
‘EVN Bulgaria Renewables’ EOOD
v
Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia Plovdiv na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite,
interested party:
Okrazhna prokuratura gr. Plovdiv,
THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),
composed of I. Jarukaitis (Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Ninth Chamber, N. Jääskinen and M. Condinanzi, Judges,
Advocate General: A. Biondi,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
– ‘EVN Bulgaria Renewables’ EOOD, by G. Petkova, advokat,
– the Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia Plovdiv na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite, by P. Georgiev,
– the Irish Government, by M. Browne, Chief State Solicitor, S. Finnegan and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by C. Donnelly, Senior Counsel, and S. Brittain, Barrister-at-Law,
– the European Commission, by O. Beynet, T. Scharf and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6(1), Article 8(1)(a) and Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy costs (OJ 2022 L 261I, p. 1).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between ‘EVN Bulgaria Renewables’ EOOD (‘EVN’) and the Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia Plovdiv na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Director of the Directorate for the Plovdiv division of the National Revenue Agency, Bulgaria) (‘the tax authority’) concerning the lawfulness of an assessment notice.
Legal context
European Union law
3 Recitals 12, 25 and 46 of Regulation 2022/1854 stated:
‘(12) … A uniform obligation to pass on the surplus revenues to consumers would allow all Member States to protect their consumers. The positive effect on energy prices would have a positive impact on the interconnected [European] Union energy market and would also help dampening the inflation rate. …
…
(25) In a situation where consumers are exposed to extremely high prices which also harm the Union’s economy, it is necessary to limit, on a temporary basis, the extraordinary market revenues of producers with lower marginal costs by way of application of the cap on market revenues achieved through the sale of electricity within the Union.
…
(46) Member States should ensure that the surplus revenues resulting from the application of the cap on market revenues in the field of electricity are passed on to final electricity customers to mitigate the impact of exceptionally high electricity prices. The surplus revenues should be targeted at customers, including both households and companies, who are particularly strongly affected by high electricity prices. …’
4 Under Article 1 of that regulation, entitled ‘Subject matter and scope’:
‘This Regulation establishes an emergency intervention to mitigate the effects of high energy prices through exceptional, targeted and time-limited measures. Those measures aim … to introduce a cap on market revenues that certain producers receive from the generation of electricity and redistribute to final electricity customers in a targeted manner … to contribute to the affordability of energy for households and companies.’
5 Article 6 of that regulation, entitled ‘Mandatory cap on market revenues’, provided, in paragraph 1 thereof:
‘Market revenues of producers obtained from the generation of electricity from the sources referred to in Article 7(1) shall be capped to a maximum of [EUR] 180 … per [megawatt hour (MWh)] of electricity produced.’
6 Article 7 of that regulation, entitled ‘Application of the cap on market revenues to electricity producers’, stated:
‘1. The cap on market revenues provided for in Article 6 shall apply to the market revenues obtained from the sale of electricity produced from the following sources:
(a) wind energy;
…
2. The cap on market revenues provided for in Article 6(1) shall not apply … to producers whose revenues per MWh of electricity produced are already capped as a result of State or public measures not adopted under Article 8.
…
4. Member States may decide that the cap on market revenues does not apply to the revenues obtained from the sale of electricity in the balancing energy market …
…’
7 Under Article 8 of Regulation 2022/1854, entitled ‘National crisis measures’:
‘1. Member States may:
(a) maintain or introduce measures that further limit the market revenues of producers generating electricity from the sources listed in Article 7(1) …;
(b) set a higher cap on market revenues for producers generating electricity from the sources listed in Article 7(1), provided that their investments and operating costs exceed the maximum set in Article 6(1);
…
(d) set a specific cap on the market revenues obtained from the sale of electricity produced from hard coal;
…
2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall, in line with this Regulation:
(a) be proportionate and non-discriminatory;
(b) not jeopardise investment signals;
(c) ensure that the investments and operating costs are covered;
(d) not distort the functioning of electricity wholesale markets, and in particular, not affect the merit order and the price formation on the wholesale market;
(e) be compatible with Union law.’
8 Under Article 22 of that regulation, entitled ‘Entry into force and application’:
‘1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
2. Without prejudice to the obligation to ensure the distribution of surplus revenues in accordance with Article 10 … this Regulation shall apply until 31 December 2023, subject to the following:
…
(c) Articles 6, 7, and 8 shall apply from 1 December 2022 to 30 June 2023;
…’
Bulgarian law
The Law on energy from renewable sources
9 The Zakon za energiata ot vazobnovyaemi iztochnitsi (Law on energy from renewable sources) (DV No 35 of 3 May 2011), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (DV No 29 of 10 April 2012), provides, in Article 31 thereof:
‘(1) Electricity produced from renewable sources shall be purchased by the public supplier or by the final suppliers at the preferential price set by the Darzhavna komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane [(State Energy and Water Regulatory Commission, Bulgaria), now the Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (Energy and Water Regulatory Commission, Bulgaria) (‘the KEVR’)] that applied on the date on which … the electricity generation plant was put into service …
(2) Electricity from renewable sources referred to in paragraph 1 shall be purchased on the basis of long-term purchase contracts concluded for the following duration:
…
2. 12 years for electricity produced from wind energy;
…’
The Law on Energy and the Law amending and supplementing the Law on Energy
10 The Zakon za energetikata (Law on Energy) (DV No 107 of 9 December 2003) has been amended several times, in particular by the Zakon za izmenenie i dopalnenie na Zakona za energetikata (Law amending and supplementing the Law on Energy) (DV No 38 of 8 May 2018). That law provides, in Paragraph 68 of its transitional and final provisions:
‘(1) Producers of electricity from renewable sources with a total installed capacity equal to or higher than 4 [megawatts (MW] across energy facilities shall, by 31 October 2018, conclude a contract for compensation by way of premiums with the Fond ‘Sigurnost na elektroenergiynata sistema’ [‘Electricity System Security’ Fund, Bulgaria (‘the FSES’)] for the quantities of electricity they generate, up to the net specific generation threshold set for them, on the basis of which their preferential price was determined. The contracts for compensation by way of premiums shall become effective not later than 1 January 2019.
(2) The premium shall be set by [the KEVR] each year by 30 June as the amount of the difference between, on the one hand, the preferential price or the updated preferential price for the power plant, set prior to the entry into force of this Law, and, on the other, the estimated market price of electricity produced from renewable sources set for that period depending on the initial energy source.
…
(4) The premium shall be provided until the end of the term of the relevant long-term purchase contract …, concluded … before the entry into force of this Law.
…
(8) From the date on which the contract referred to in subparagraph 1 takes effect, the purchase contract of the relevant producer referred to in subparagraph 1, concluded before the entry into force of this Law, shall be deemed to have been terminated, and the public supplier or the final suppliers shall not purchase the electricity generated by that producer at a preferential price.
(9) From 1 July 2018 until the date on which the contract referred to in subparagraph 1 takes effect, the public supplier shall purchase electricity at preferential prices from the producers referred to in subparagraph 1 who are connected to the electricity grid.
…’
11 The supplementary provisions of the Law on Energy, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, provide, in Paragraph 1(42) thereof:
‘For the purposes of this Law:
…
42. “Estimated market price for producer groups depending on the initial energy source” means the annual average price set by the [KEVR] in accordance with methodology for electricity produced from solar energy, wind power, hydropower plants with an installed capacity of up to 10 MW, biomass and other types of renewable sources, as well as for electricity produced from high-efficiency cogeneration of thermal energy and electricity from natural gas and coal.’
The 2022 Law applying provisions concerning the State budget
12 The Zakon za prilagane na razporedbi na Zakona za darzhavnia byudzhet na Republika Bulgaria za 2022 g., Zakona za byudzheta na darzhavnoto obshtestveno osiguryavane za 2022 g. i Zakona za byudzheta na Natsionalnata zdravnoosiguritelna kasa za 2022 g. (Law applying provisions of the Law on the State budget of the Republic of Bulgaria for 2022, the Law on the budget of the State social security system for 2022 and the Law on the budget of the National Health Insurance Fund for 2022) (DV No 104 of 30 December 2022), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the 2022 Law applying provisions concerning the State budget’), provides, in Paragraph 8 of its transitional and final provisions:
‘(1) Producers generating electricity with power-generating facilities with an installed capacity exceeding 1 MW, whose market revenues are obtained from the sale of electricity produced from the sources listed in Article 7(1) of [Regulation 2022/1854], shall pay into [the FSES] earmarked contributions representing the positive difference between, on the one hand, the market revenues, net of value added tax [(VAT)], and, on the other, the revenue cap set, calculated by applying the values for the relevant type of producer, for the supply period from 1 December 2022 to 30 June 2023, with the exception of transactions concerning balancing energy needed by [Elektroenergien sistemen operator EAD] to balance the electricity supply network. The amount of the earmarked contribution shall be calculated for each transaction.
(2) The values used as the basis for calculating the revenue cap for the relevant type of producer referred to in subparagraph 1 shall be determined by a decision of the Ministerski savet [Council of Ministers, Bulgaria)].
(3) Producers generating electricity with power-generating facilities with an installed capacity exceeding 1 MW, which have a contract for compensation by way of premiums in force at 8 October 2022 and whose market revenues are obtained from the sale of electricity produced from the sources listed in Article 7(1) of [Regulation 2022/1854], shall pay into [the FSES] earmarked contributions from the market revenues, net of [VAT], from every transaction that was concluded at freely negotiated prices in the period from 1 December 2022 to 30 June 2023, with the exception of transactions concerning balancing energy. The amount of the earmarked contribution for each transaction shall be calculated as follows:
1. the positive difference between, on the one hand, the market revenues, net of [VAT], resulting from the relevant transaction concluded at freely negotiated prices (market price achieved) and, on the other, the revenue cap set, calculated on the basis of the estimated market price pursuant to the pricing decision of the [KEVR] setting the premium applicable to the relevant producer, in the case of producers for which the amount of that premium is not 0.00 [lev (BGN)] per MWh net of [VAT], and
2. 90% of the positive difference between, on the one hand, the market revenues, net of [VAT], resulting from the relevant transaction concluded at freely negotiated prices (market price achieved) and, on the other, the revenue cap set, calculated on the basis of the preferential price set by decision of the [KEVR] in accordance with the contract for compensation by way of premiums, in the case of producers for which the amount of the applicable premium is BGN 0.00 per MWh net of [VAT].
…’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
13 EVN is an electricity producer having its registered office in Bulgaria. It owns a wind power plant for producing electricity located in Kavarna (Bulgaria), with a total installed capacity of 16 MW, that was put into operation on 8 June 2012. In accordance with Article 31 of the Law on energy from renewable sources, in the version applicable to the main proceedings, EVN concluded, on 28 June 2012, a contract for the purchase of the energy produced by that plant with Natsionalna elektricheska kompaniya AD (‘the electricity purchase contract’), for the period until 28 June 2024, at a preferential price of BGN 191 (approximately EUR 98) per MWh.
14 Following changes to the law relating to the purchase of electricity from renewable sources, that contract was replaced by a contract for compensation by way of premiums, concluded on 28 September 2018, and the electricity purchase contract was terminated, in accordance with Paragraph 68(8) of the transitional and final provisions of the Law amending and supplementing the Law on Energy. In accordance with that contract for compensation by way of premiums, the FSES undertook to pay EVN a premium for the quantity of electricity generated by the Kavarna wind power plant in respect of which EVN had concluded transactions on the balancing energy market. The premium per MWh of electricity corresponds to the difference between the preferential price under the electricity purchase contract and the estimated price set by a decision of the KEVR for the relevant period.
15 The last premium under that contract for compensation by way of premiums was paid to EVN for October 2021. After that month, the estimated price set by the KEVR was higher than the preferential price under the electricity purchase contract. Consequently, the premium for the electricity produced by that power plant was set at BGN 0 per MWh.
16 Having taken the view that the contract for compensation by way of premiums had been terminated with effect from 30 November 2021, EVN paid earmarked contributions, pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the transitional and final provisions of the 2022 Law applying provisions concerning the State budget, for the Kavarna power plant, for the period from 1 December 2022 to 30 June 2023, that were calculated based on the revenue cap of BGN 350 (approximately EUR 180) set pursuant to Paragraph 8(1) and (2).
17 By an assessment notice of 27 June 2024, different amounts for the earmarked contributions on the part of EVN were established for that period, using as the upper limit the preferential price of BGN 191 per MWh of electricity produced. Pursuant to that notice, EVN is required to pay earmarked contributions of BGN 1 818 884.99 (approximately EUR 929 980) together with default interest of BGN 320 462 (approximately EUR 163 850).
18 EVN lodged an administrative appeal against that notice with the tax authority, arguing in particular that it was contrary to Article 6(1) and Article 8(2)(a) of Regulation 2022/1854. By decision of 12 September 2024, that authority confirmed that assessment notice. EVN then brought an action before the Administrativen sad Plovdiv (Administrative Court, Plovdiv, Bulgaria), the referring court, seeking the annulment of that notice.
19 The referring court notes, in the first place, that the tax authority justifies the application of a cap on market revenues set according to Paragraph 8 of the transitional and final provisions of the 2022 Law applying provisions concerning the State budget on the ground that that national provision implements Article 6(1) of Regulation 2022/1854. It adds that that authority interprets that provision as setting only an upper limit to the cap and, therefore, as leaving Member States free to set a cap lower than EUR 180 per MWh without taking into account the requirements of Article 8(2) of that regulation. EVN disputes that interpretation.
20 The referring court states, in the second place, that Paragraph 8 of the transitional and final provisions of the 2022 Law applying provisions concerning the State budget, as applied by the tax authority, introduces different values for the revenue caps of producers of electricity from renewable sources depending on whether or not, on 8 October 2022, a contract for compensation by way of premiums concluded with the FSES existed.
21 In that regard, the referring court states that, for producers without contracts or with contracts that had already been terminated by that date, the revenue cap is BGN 350 per MWh of electricity produced, in accordance with Paragraph 8(1), read in conjunction with Paragraph 8(2) as well as with a decision of the Council of Ministers. By contrast, in accordance with Paragraph 8(3)(2), for producers that are parties to contracts for compensation by way of premiums still in force at 8 October 2022, and where the premium owed under the contract is BGN 0 per MWh, the revenue cap corresponds to the preferential price set out in the electricity purchase contract, and the earmarked contribution then amounts to 90% of the positive difference between, on the one hand, the market revenues obtained, net of VAT, resulting from the relevant transaction concluded at freely negotiated prices, and, on the other, the cap determined in that manner.
22 Noting that that legislation lowers the price cap introduced by Article 6(1) of Regulation 2022/1854, the referring court states that the question arises as to whether that legislation is contrary to the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, inasmuch as the cap on revenues obtained from the production of electricity from renewable sources that corresponds to the preferential price under the terminated electricity purchase contract depends on whether a contract for compensation by way of premiums was in force on 8 October 2022, under which, in any event, there was no entitlement to premiums.
23 In those circumstances, the Administrativen sad Plovdiv (Administrative Court, Plovdiv) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1) Must Article 6(1) of [Regulation 2022/1854] be interpreted as meaning that the mandatory cap, introduced by that provision, on market revenues obtained from electricity produced from the sources listed in Article 7(1) [thereof] of EUR 180 per MWh constitutes a single Union-wide cap on market revenues that applies in all Member States, and that the Member States may maintain or introduce other measures that further restrict the market revenues, inter alia, by setting a lower cap in the cases referred to in Article 8(1)(a), taking into account the requirements of Article 8(2) of the regulation?
(2) Does the [rule] laid down in [Paragraph 8(3)(2)] of the transitional and final provisions of [the 2022 Law applying provisions concerning the State budget], according to which, for market revenues obtained from the production of electricity from the sources listed in Article 7(1) of [Regulation 2022/1854], by producers whose [contracts for compensation by way of premiums] pursuant to [Paragraph] 68(1) in conjunction with [Paragraph 68](9) [of the transitional and final provisions of the Law amending and supplementing the Law on Energy] concerning the relevant plant had not been terminated as of 8 October 2022, the cap on revenues is the level of the preferential price under the electricity purchase contract pursuant to [Article] 31 [of the Law on energy from renewable sources, in the version applicable to the main proceedings], meet the requirements laid down in Article 8(2) of the regulation, in particular the requirements of proportionality and non-discrimination in point (a)?’
Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling
24 The tax authority submits that the present request for a preliminary ruling is devoid of purpose on the ground that the national rules applicable to the earmarked contributions provided for by the 2022 Law applying provisions concerning the State budget are to be strictly applied and are not open to interpretation. Therefore, the tax authority disputes, in essence, the admissibility of that request.
25 It must be borne in mind that, under Article 267 TFEU, it is for the national court or tribunal, and not the parties to the main proceedings, to bring a matter before the Court of Justice. Since the right to determine the questions to be brought before the Court thus devolves upon the national court or tribunal alone, the parties may not change their tenor (judgment of 9 December 1965, Singer, 44/65, EU:C:1965:122, p. 970).
26 Moreover, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court, in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling from a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought is unrelated to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgments of 24 June 2008, Commune de Mesquer, C‑188/07, EU:C:2008:359, paragraph 30, and of 4 June 2026, Darashev, C‑312/24, EU:C:2026:449, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).
27 Consequently, the ground of inadmissibility raised by the tax authority cannot render the request for a preliminary ruling inadmissible and must, accordingly, be rejected.
Consideration of the questions referred
The first question
28 According to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the referring court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to decide the case before it. To that end, the Court of Justice may have to reformulate the questions referred to it (see judgments of 17 July 1997, Krüger, C‑334/95, EU:C:1997:378, paragraphs 22 and 23; of 28 November 2000, Roquette Frères, C‑88/99, EU:C:2000:652, paragraph 18; and of 21 May 2026, Utiledulci, C‑545/24, EU:C:2026:412, paragraph 16).
29 In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the measure capping the revenue of certain electricity producers, provided for in Paragraph 8 of the transitional and final provisions of the 2022 Law applying provisions concerning the State budget, the application of which to EVN gave rise to the dispute in the main proceedings, was applied, in accordance with that provision, to supplies of electricity made during the period from 1 December 2022 to 30 June 2023.
30 Furthermore, in accordance with Article 22(2)(c) of Regulation 2022/1854, the provisions of that regulation whose interpretation the referring court seeks, by its first question, applied from 1 December 2022 to 30 June 2023. Moreover, the Court has already held that nothing in Regulation 2022/1854 indicates that it would apply to a measure capping revenue introduced by national legislation for a period prior to its entry into force, nor, a fortiori, that such legislation would have to comply with the conditions laid down in that regulation (judgment of 18 December 2025, Electrabel and Others, C‑633/23, EU:C:2025:991, paragraph 58). In the light of the unequivocal wording of Article 22(2)(c), the same is necessarily true for a measure capping revenue introduced by national legislation for a period subsequent to the date on which those provisions cease to apply.
31 In those circumstances, it is necessary to reformulate the first question referred and to consider that, by that question, the referring courts asks, in essence, whether Article 6(1) and Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation 2022/1854 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from setting, for the period from 1 December 2022 to 30 June 2023, a cap on market revenues obtained by producers of electricity from the sources referred to in Article 7(1) of that regulation at a level lower than the cap of EUR 180 per MWh of electricity produced provided for in Article 6(1) of that regulation, subject to compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 8(2) thereof.
32 In accordance with settled case-law, for the purpose of interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck, 292/82, EU:C:1983:335, paragraph 12, and of 4 June 2026, Landkreis Schweinfurt, C‑621/24, EU:C:2026:450, paragraph 56).
33 As regards the wording of the provisions whose interpretation is sought, it should be noted that Article 6(1) of Regulation 2022/1854 provides that market revenues of producers obtained from the generation of electricity from the sources referred to in Article 7(1) are to be capped at a maximum of EUR 180 per MWh of electricity produced. As regards Article 8(1)(a) of that regulation, it provides, inter alia, that Member States may maintain or introduce measures that further limit the market revenues of producers generating electricity from the sources listed in Article 7(1) of that regulation. Article 8(2) of that regulation lists the conditions that the measures referred to in Article 8(1) must satisfy.
34 It must therefore be held that it is clear from the wording of those provisions that the Member States may, in compliance with the conditions set out in Article 8(2) of Regulation 2022/1854, inter alia, adopt measures which further limit the market revenues obtained by those producers. Furthermore, nothing in that wording indicates that such a measure cannot take the form of a measure capping revenue at an amount lower than that provided for in Article 6(1) of that regulation, provided that the conditions set out in Article 8(2) are satisfied. On the contrary, given that Article 8(1)(a) of that regulation allows the adoption of measures ‘that further limit’ the market revenues obtained by the producers concerned, it follows from that wording that the measures capping revenue adopted under Article 8(1)(a) may set a cap that is lower than that provided for in Article 6(1) (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 December 2025, Electrabel and Others, C‑633/23, EU:C:2025:991, paragraphs 29 and 30, and of 22 January 2026, Secab, C‑423/23, EU:C:2026:32, paragraph 42).
35 That literal interpretation is supported by the context in which Article 6(1) and Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation 2022/1854 occur. First, Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation provides that Member States may set a higher cap on market revenues for producers generating electricity from the sources listed in Article 7(1) of that regulation, provided that their investments and operating costs exceed the maximum set in Article 6(1) of that regulation. Second, Article (8)(1)(d) of that regulation provides that Member States may set a specific cap on the market revenues obtained from the sale of electricity produced from hard coal.
36 Accordingly, those elements confirm that the measures that Member States may adopt under Article 8(1) of Regulation 2022/1854 include measures capping market revenues at levels that are different from the level provided for in Article 6(1) of that regulation.
37 The interpretation adopted in paragraph 34 of the present judgment is also supported by the objective pursued by Regulation 2022/1854, as expressed in Article 1 thereof, according to which that regulation seeks, inter alia, to introduce a cap on market revenues that certain producers receive from the generation of electricity and redistribute to final electricity customers in a targeted manner, in order, as indicated in recital 12 of that regulation, to protect consumers, by dampening the inflation rate. In that regard, recital 25 of that regulation states that, in a situation where consumers are exposed to extremely high prices which also harm the European Union’s economy, it is necessary to limit, on a temporary basis, the extraordinary market revenues of producers with lower marginal costs by way of application of the cap on market revenues achieved through the sale of electricity within the European Union. Also to that effect, recital 46 of Regulation 2022/1854 states that Member States should ensure that the surplus revenues resulting from the application of the cap on market revenues in the field of electricity are passed on to final electricity customers to mitigate the impact of exceptionally high electricity prices.
38 If the measures further limiting market revenues that may be adopted by the Member States under Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation 2022/1854 did not include measures capping revenue at a level lower than the cap laid down in Article 6(1) of that regulation, even though such a capping measure has, in principle, been regarded by the EU legislature as being particularly appropriate for attaining that objective, the full effectiveness of that regulation would be undermined. In those circumstances, Member States would be deprived of a tool that is nevertheless regarded by the EU legislature as being particularly suitable for attaining that objective.
39 Article 6(1) and Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation 2022/1854 therefore do not preclude a Member State from adopting, under Article 8(1)(a) of that regulation, a measure capping market revenues obtained by electricity producers from the sources referred to in Article 7(1) of that regulation, the amount of which is set at a level lower than that provided for in Article 6(1) of the regulation, provided that the conditions set out in Article 8(2) thereof are satisfied.
40 Furthermore, first, given that it appears from the order for reference that the earmarked contributions at issue in the main proceedings are owed for transactions concluded in the balancing energy market, it must be emphasised that, in accordance with Article 7(4) of Regulation 2022/1854, Member States may decide that the cap on market revenues does not apply to revenues from, inter alia, sales of electricity in the balancing energy market. Therefore, if the Member State concerned does not make use of that option, the revenue-capping measure provided for in Article 6(1) of that regulation or, as the case may be, introduced by a Member State under Article 8(1)(a) of that regulation, applies, in principle, to revenues from sales of electricity in that market. It follows that, even if that fact were to be confirmed by the referring court, it would have no bearing on the interpretation given in paragraphs 33 to 39 of the present judgment.
41 Second, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation 2022/1854, the cap on market revenues provided for in Article 6(1) of that regulation is not to apply to demonstration projects or to producers whose revenues per MWh of electricity produced are already capped as a result of State or public measures not adopted under Article 8 of that regulation. However, it is not apparent from the order for reference that that is the case in the main proceedings.
42 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 6(1) and Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation 2022/1854 must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from setting, for the period from 1 December 2022 to 30 June 2023, a cap on market revenues obtained by producers of electricity from the sources referred to in Article 7(1) of that regulation at a level lower than the cap of EUR 180 per MWh of electricity produced provided for in Article 6(1) of that regulation, subject to compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 8(2) thereof.
The second question
43 It should be noted that the literal wording of the second question referred by the referring court invites the Court to rule on the compatibility of a provision of national law with EU law. In the system of cooperation established by Article 267 TFEU, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the compatibility of national rules with EU law, with the result that the Court cannot respond to that question as it is formulated. However, the Court does have jurisdiction to provide the national court with all the guidance as to the interpretation of EU law necessary to enable that court to determine whether those national rules are compatible with EU law (see, to that effect, judgments of 6 March 2007, Placanica and Others, C‑338/04, C‑359/04 and C‑360/04, EU:C:2007:133, paragraphs 36 and 37 and the case-law cited, and of 12 March 2026, Zirvatta, C‑597/24, EU:C:2026:198, paragraph 37).
44 However, it is clear from Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and from settled case-law that, in order to provide an interpretation of EU law which is of use for the national court, the request for a preliminary ruling must, first, contain a summary of the subject matter of the dispute at issue in the main proceedings, and the relevant findings of fact as determined by the referring court or tribunal, or, at least, an account of the facts on which the questions are based. It must, second, set out the tenor of any national provisions applicable in the case in the main proceedings and, where appropriate, the relevant national case-law. Third, the referring court or tribunal must state the reasons which prompted it to inquire about the interpretation or validity of certain provisions of EU law, and the relationship between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the main proceedings (see order of the President of the Court of 12 June 2014, Municipiul Piatra Neamț, C‑13/14, EU:C:2014:2000, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited, and judgment of 4 June 2026, Darashev, C‑312/24, EU:C:2026:449, paragraph 56).
45 In the present case, it is true that the referring court set out the tenor of the provisions of national legislation applicable to the main proceedings as well as a summary of the subject matter of those proceedings. However, as the European Commission has also stated, the request for a preliminary ruling does not contain any explanation of the reasons for the differentiated treatment of electricity producers who were subject to the revenue-capping measure that is at issue in the main proceedings depending on whether or not they were bound, on 8 October 2022, by a contract for compensation by way of premiums. In particular, the referring court has not explained how the situation of those producers, bound by such a contract on that date, differs or does not differ from the situation of those which were not. The referring court has also not set out any objectives pursued by the national legislature when it drew that distinction, or the reasons why that court is uncertain about the interpretation of Article 8(2)(a) of Regulation 2022/1854, or the relationship between that provision and the national legislation applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.
46 Accordingly, even if, by its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 8(2)(a) of Regulation 2022/1854 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that described in the wording of that second question, it must be held that the Court does not have before it the material necessary to give a useful answer to that question.
47 Consequently, that second question must be declared to be inadmissible.
Costs
48 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 6(1) and Article 8(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices
must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from setting, for the period from 1 December 2022 to 30 June 2023, a cap on market revenues obtained by producers of electricity from the sources referred to in Article 7(1) of that regulation at a level lower than the cap of EUR 180 per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity produced provided for in Article 6(1) of that regulation, subject to compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 8(2) thereof.
[Signatures]
* Language of the case: Bulgarian.