The Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo, in a panel session held on 26 January 2026, delivered a judgment in the administrative dispute initiated by the claimant Kosovo Electricity Transmission, System and Market Operator – KOSTT J.S.C., against the defendant Energy Regulatory Office (ERO), concerning the annulment of administrative act V_1739_2023, dated 05 May 2023.
The Supreme Court rejected as unfounded the request for an extraordinary review of the court decision submitted by KOSTT J.S.C. against the judgment of the Commercial Court of Kosovo – Second Instance Chambers, case no. K.DH.SH.II.nr.913/24, dated 08 November 2024.
The Supreme Court assessed that the judgments of the lower-instance courts were rendered in full compliance with the applicable legal provisions.
According to the Supreme Court, the reasoning provided by the Commercial Court of Kosovo was comprehensive, clear, and based on a proper analysis of the facts and the applicable legislation.
In its reasoning, the Supreme Court concluded that ERO lawfully exercised its legal and regulatory competences, having conducted a comprehensive monitoring process of KOSTT J.S.C., in accordance with the Law on the Energy Regulator, the Law on Electricity, the Market Rules, the Balancing Code, and other relevant secondary legislation.
Based on the evidence administered in this case, the Court found that ERO, pursuant to the Law on the Energy Regulator, properly exercised its responsibilities in monitoring the operation of the electricity markets to ensure their efficient functioning and to identify any necessary corrective actions. In this context, ERO conducted investigations related to potential violations committed by the Transmission System Operator, KOSTT.
The Court further assessed that, in imposing the fine of €439,405.00 (four hundred thirty-nine thousand four hundred five euros) on KOSTT for the established legal violations related to electricity purchases, payments, and nominations, both procedural and substantive legal provisions were correctly applied. Consequently, the Court fully rejected the claim as unfounded.
