​Energy companies benefited from rising energy prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it is unfair for them to keep only profits that are not the result of management efficiency, including OMV Petrom, Bohdan Chiritsoyu, president of the Competition Council, said on Thursday.

At a conference devoted to the activities of the antimonopoly body last year, Chirica was asked about the dispute between the state and OMV Petrom over the payment of the solidarity tax.

We remind you that Romania asked the European Commission for clarification on the application of the energy solidarity tax after OMV Petrom stated that it would not pay the contribution on the grounds that the revenues from the extraction and processing of hydrocarbons do not exceed 75% of the turnover, as the Emergency Government resolution.

Chiritsou: According to the law, Petrom must pay. I don’t know if it is in the letter of the law

Bohdan Chiritsoyu claims that OMV Petrom would have benefited from the price increase, and according to the EU Directive and national law, it must pay.

• “Where there is a law, there is no bargaining. The law is not so vague that people do not understand whether to pay or not. The law transposes the EU decision.
• The energy companies have benefited – through no fault of their own, but no credit – from the fact that energy prices have risen – and it’s somehow unfair that they should be left with the profits made from the Russian invasion rather than their special management activity.
• The state must also participate, especially since the state must help those affected by high inflation. Romania was the second EU country to introduce this tax for electricity and gas companies, after Spain, at the end of 2021. Now the EU said that oil companies also, not only electricity and gas companies, and then the state adopted this regulation.
• It would be logical to pay, it made sense. Petrom clearly benefited from the price increase.
• The meaning of the European decision and our law is that the companies that benefited from this context and because they had no merit, and I think that Petrom is suitable, therefore, in the spirit of the law, they should pay, but I cannot tell you , if and in the letter of the law.”, said Bohdan Chiritsa on Thursday.

Solidarity tax: Romania asks European Commission for clarification after OMV says it won’t pay

The Ministry of Finance has asked the European Commission for clarifications regarding the European regulation, transposed into national law through a resolution adopted at the end of December, regarding the introduction of a solidarity contribution, an allowance for companies in the oil, gas and coal sectors, the information was first reported by Profit.ro.

Although the Ministry of Finance’s request is general, the approach was most likely determined by the statement by OMV Petrom that it will not pay the solidarity contribution in Romania, explaining that the revenues from the extraction and processing of hydrocarbons do not exceed 75% of the turnover.

Finance Minister Adrian Caciu said on Wednesday that Romania would receive an answer from the European Commission in a few days on whether the energy solidarity tax would also be applied to OMV Petrom, saying everyone would pay for the cost of living increase. in solidarity.

He also explained why this clarification was not made earlier.

• “Prior to the adoption of the resolution, the consultations with the Commission were about the complementarity of the actions of the Government in the sense that what is already established should not be excluded if you introduce a new solidarity contribution, because it is also aimed at different types of income. Some of it is excess revenue and we have a contribution to the energy transition fund, and some is excess income tax from which certain expenses are deducted. And the Commission’s response was that they complement each other and can work together.” Adrian Cachiu also stated.

Asked if he was sure there was no way OMV Petrom wouldn’t fall into this turnover, the finance minister said: “I’m very sure.”

On the other hand, energy expert Dumitru Kiselice argues that the way GEO 186/2022 was written means that the target company itself is not covered by the overcharging law.

“The accusations against the company are baseless if it complies with the law. There is no question that OMV Petrom does not want to pay, the LAW says it is not obligated to pay.

GEO 186/2022 provides for the obligation to pay the solidarity contribution for the fiscal year 2022, if at least 75% of the turnover comes from the following sectors: crude oil production, natural gas production, oil production and production of products obtained from oil refining.

According to the preliminary financial results for 2022, in 2022 OMV Petrom has less than 75% turnover in the sectors defined in GEO 186/2022.”, says Dumitru Ciselice, president of the Intelligent Energy Association.