Europe’s response to fuel price spikes has been strikingly uneven.
During the 2022 European energy crisis and the present 2026 Gulf crisis, governments have used three broad tools: direct intervention in prices or margins, restrictions on firms’ pricing behaviour, and temporary fuel tax cuts.
The diversity of approaches is notable. So is the central policy question: when there is a shock in upstream crude oil supply, what is gained by intervening in downstream retail fuel markets?
A familiar political problem, but not the same economic one
Sharp petrol and diesel price increases create an immediate political imperative to act. That was true during 2022’s European energy crisis. And it is true again now, as the Strait of Hormuz has become unnavigable, pushing up European oil and refined product prices. The European Commission has framed the current episode as a security-of-supply challenge requiring coordinated preparation for oil and refined-product disruptions, while the IEA has coupled emergency stock releases with a tracker of national crisis measures. In other words, the proximate trigger is upstream scarcity and logistics risk, not obviously a failure of retail competition.
That distinction matters. If the central problem is tighter crude supply and more expensive product imports, downstream regulation cannot remove the underlying scarcity. At best, it reallocates who bears the cost. At worst, it weakens consumer responses and the ability of retailers to absorb volatility, maintain service and keep product moving to end users.
Models of intervention
The European response has broadly fallen into three groups.
The first is direct interference with prices or margins. Hungary has re-introduced capped retail fuel prices in 2026, having previously applied them in 2022. Austria, Czechia and others are limiting retailer margins. These caps attempt to directly contain pump prices, either by fixing the retail outcome or compressing the room for retailers to recover upstream costs.
The second is temporary tax relief. This was prominent in 2022 and has reappeared in 2026. Germany’s 2022 “Tankrabatt” cut fuel taxes for three months and it has just decided on a new temporary 2 month tax rebate; Italy reduced excise duties in 2022 and again in 2026; Ireland cut excise duties in March 2026 and later announced a broader support package while deferring the scheduled carbon-tax rise. Another measure, reduced VAT on fuels, has been used in Poland. Meanwhile, the policy question in the UK is slightly different: should a planned fuel tax increase in September go ahead as planned?
Other interventions contain permitted market behaviour rather than price levels. Germany’s 2026 package is the leading example. Since 1 April, petrol stations can only increase prices once per day, at 12 noon, while price reductions are allowed at any time. Berlin has presented this as a transparency and anti-abuse measure and paired it with stronger powers for the Bundeskartellamt.
Coordinated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) a host of countries also released the equivalent of 400m bbl of oil and fuels from their strategic reserve (equivalent to about 20% of all IEA member reserves) into the market to partly counteract the supply shock from the Gulf crisis.
Some countries have combined measures: Austria and Czechia for instance are combining limits on retailer margins with lower fuel taxes. Germany is combining tax relief with behavioural measures.
The oddity at the heart of the debate
There is an obvious tension in much of this policy response. The trigger lies upstream, but the intervention - apart from releasing reserves - is often downstream.
That is not to say downstream intervention is never justified. Governmental action may be well founded if there is, for instance, clear evidence of collusion. But that case should be made on competition grounds, not inferred simply from the existence of high-end user prices during an international oil shock.
This is where the German “12 o-clock rule” is curious. It does not directly assert that pump prices are “too high” in a structural sense. Instead, it targets a pattern of intra-day price movements that policymakers view as confusing or potentially exploitable. Yet even here the intervention rests on an implicit assumption that regulatory design can improve on the outcomes of competitive rivalry in local fuel retailing. That is a strong claim, and one that should not be made lightly.
Can regulation be superior to effective competition?
A core policy risk is that interventions aimed at “protecting consumers” in fact undermine the economics of the downstream market.
Fuel retail is capital-intensive and operationally demanding. Even where gross margins may look politically salient, they fund staff, compliance, logistics, site operation, working capital and future investment. If the downstream market is already competitive, margins are not a policy error to be corrected; they are part of the mechanism by which supply is sustained. In that setting, further compression of prices or margins can weaken cash flow, deter investment and, over time, reduce resilience.
This concern is especially sharp in a period of upstream disruption. When supply is tight, the system needs retailers and wholesalers to keep product flowing, not to ration hidden losses through poorer service, delayed maintenance or reduced appetite to hold inventory. Direct retail intervention may therefore do little to solve the underlying problem while increasing the probability of downstream fragility.
This is not merely a theoretical concern, it is observable. When Hungary capped retail fuel prices in 2022, consumers stockpiled fuel while fuel imports and domestic retail supply dwindled. Hungarian fuel retailers compared the resulting fuel shortages to those of the 1970s. Academic research also found that the cap disproportionately harmed Hungary’s independent retailers and likely their ability to compete.5 Price regulation’s adverse impacts can therefore be a mix of the acute and the chronic.
Tax cuts are politically easier but also imperfect
Tax reductions often look more attractive because they avoid directly commanding firms’ commercial decisions. But they are not without important considerations.
First, in general, pass-through is not guaranteed. Theory emphasises that the extent of pass-through in a market depends on its competitive and demand dynamics. However, multiple recent empirical studies, drawing on fuel tax cuts across Europe in 2022, find evidence of either high or full pass through of fuel tax cuts on petrol and diesel prices in Germany, France and Italy. While fuel tax cuts in these countries do appear to have worked as intended in the past, tax cuts are still expensive and – depending on the market circumstances – a less certain way of lowering pump prices.
Second, tax cuts (as well as retail price and margin regulation) are poorly aligned with the medium-term policy objective of reducing exposure to oil-price shocks. By muting the consumer signal from higher oil prices, they weaken incentives to economise fuel use, switch modes, or accelerate investment in less oil-dependent transport. Even the Commission’s current 2026 response leans more heavily toward electrification and time-limited support than toward broad fossil-fuel price suppression.
Ireland illustrates the tension clearly. Its 2026 package combined excise cuts and a delay to the carbon-tax increase with targeted support for affected sectors. That may be understandable as crisis management. But it also shows how quickly short-term affordability measures can pull against longer-term decarbonisation and resilience objectives.
Why do neighbouring countries reach such different conclusions?
One of the more striking features of 2022 and 2026 is that neighbours have adopted sharply different “truths”.
Germany has emphasised behavioural regulation and transparency. Hungary continues to favour explicit price control. Austria has combined tax relief with margin intervention. Ireland has primarily used tax and fiscal support. Italy has relied heavily on excise-duty reductions at different points. This variation cannot be explained by the upstream shock itself, which is broadly common. It reflects differences in political economy, institutional habit, fiscal space, confidence in competition authorities, and tolerance for visible intervention.
For policymakers, that diversity is useful. It shows there is no settled European consensus that retail price intervention is the natural or superior response to an oil shock. The choice of instrument is contingent, not inevitable.
What disputes can this create?
These interventions also create a more contentious legal and regulatory environment.
At one level, there are the familiar domestic disputes: judicial review of emergency measures, challenges to the proportionality of price controls, disputes over methodology for setting caps or allowed premia, and appeals around the scope of competition-law powers.
At another, there is a wider investment risk. International investment law continues to expose governments to claims where foreign investors argue that abrupt, discriminatory or insufficiently justified measures have impaired protected investments; UNCTAD reports that treaty-based ISDS cases – though not all relating to energy - have continued to rise, and current commentary on energy transition policy highlights the exposure of fossil-fuel assets to such claims. That does not mean every fuel-market intervention leads to arbitration. But it does mean policymakers should design emergency measures with legal durability in mind: clear statutory basis, transparent methodology, even-handed application and credible sunset provisions.
A better policy hierarchy
The lesson is not that governments should do nothing. It is that they should intervene in the part of the problem they are actually trying to solve.
Where the issue is upstream scarcity, the first-best response is likely to focus on supply security, emergency stocks, targeted support for the most exposed users, and demand-side measures that reduce oil consumption rather than conceal the price signal. The IEA’s 2026 policy work10 explicitly includes demand-reduction options alongside emergency oil stocks, and the Commission has stressed coordinated action on oil security of supply.
That suggests a practical hierarchy for policymakers:
-
Test the diagnosis first. High prices during an oil shock are not, by themselves, evidence of downstream market failure.
-
Prefer targeted support to market-wide distortion. Help vulnerable households or critical sectors directly where possible.
-
Use retail regulation cautiously. Intervene in prices or margins only where there is a clearly evidenced competition or conduct problem and only if retail regulation addresses the root-cause of the problem and not just a symptom.
-
Be careful with fuel-tax cuts. While visible and popular, they are costly and dampen the immediate incentive to substitute fuel use.
-
Design crisis measures for exit. Temporary tools have a habit of lingering unless governments commit upfront to review and sunset.
The political temptation to regulate fuel retail markets during an oil shock is understandable. Pump prices are visible and their regulation takes immediate effect. But visibility should not be confused with causation. High petrol prices are the visible expression of an upstream shock rather than the source of the price shock.
That is why the current European patchwork is so revealing. It shows not only that governments reach different judgments under pressure, but that some interventions are trying to fix the symptom rather than the cause. The more durable lesson for policymakers is that effective competition in downstream fuel markets is usually an asset in a crisis, not an obstacle to be bypassed.
Interventions should not undermine the cash flow, incentives and investment needed to keep the downstream system functioning.
Policy focus should be on supply security – measured release of reserves and facilitation of demand response - and targeted support to those in real need, rather than trying to suppress the retail price signal simply because that is the element consumers see and feel most immediately.
Authors
Dr Christoph Riechmann is an Executive Director in the Energy Practice and also heads the offices in Berlin and Cologne.
View profile
Goran is an Executive Director in our Telecommunications team and specialises in competition and regulatory issues.
View profile
Joe advises clients on disputes, competition cases and regulatory topics in energy, telecoms and adjacent industries.
View profile
Daniel is based in Madrid and specialises in providing economic evidence in legal disputes and regulatory matters in a wide range of industries in Europe and Latin America.
View profile