In March 2026 the Metla newsroom asked the State Audit Office to examine the operations of EVN Macedonia, on the basis of information and complaints pointing to disproportionately high costs for connection to the electricity distribution network and possible unequal treatment of users, and knowing that the state nevertheless holds 10% of EVN, among other things. The request was registered at the audit office under number 09-12/26 of 31.03.2026 and forwarded to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, in letter NP no. 766/26 of 28.04.2026, informs Metla that proceedings have been opened and that the Energy Regulatory Commission has been asked for explanations, information and evidence as to whether there are grounds for taking appropriate action. According to a later letter from the commission, the Ombudsman approached it again on 19.05.2026. The commission then acts in case UP1 no. 09-102/26, and its Notification on the complaint is no. 09-102/26 of 17.06.2026. The commission states it has statutory powers to carry out control and supervision over the work of energy operators, but assesses the complaint as "sweeping and unfounded", while at the same time calling on Metla to submit concrete evidence for further action Then comes the key document. In letter no. 19-1213/1 of 08.07.2026, the State Audit Office forwards Metla's approach to the Ombudsman. In the reasoning relayed by the commission, it states that the audit office, citing articles 19 and 22 of the Law on State Audit, considers it has no competence to audit EVN Macedonia because this is a private legal entity "in which the state holds no ownership stake" And it is precisely here that the essential question opens up: if the state holds 10% of EVN, how did the audit office officially reach the conclusion that the state holds no ownership stake?

In the end, the Ombudsman, having taken into account the commission's reply no. 09-102/26 of 17.06.2026, halts the proceedings in case NP no. 766/26, with the reasoning that "there are no grounds for further action on it".

So, after several months of institutional correspondence, there is no audit, the case is closed, and the most important question remains unanswered:

Who manages and controls the state's stake in EVN, and how did the State Audit Office establish that the state holds no ownership stake?

If the state holds 10%, those shares are public capital. That is why Metla is asking the audit office a simple question: on the basis of which official document was it established that the state holds 0% of EVN?

In case UP1 no. 09-102/26, the Energy Regulatory Commission first clearly states that under the Energy Law it regulates and controls how energy activities are carried out, monitors the energy markets and exercises control and supervision over the work of energy companies.

But when Metla pointed to possible problems with high connection costs, unequal treatment and limited access to infrastructure, the commission requested information from Elektrodistribucija DOOEL Skopje itself. After receiving its reply, it assessed the complaint as "sweeping and unfounded".

So the commission says it controls the energy market and the operators, but when doubts arose about the operations of Elektrodistribucija - it asked Elektrodistribucija and then concluded the complaint was unfounded.

The question is simple: where is the regulator's independent control?

Because control is not asking the controlled party whether it is working properly and then using its answer as the basis for your conclusion.

reply from the regulator