Judicial Council and Association of Judges oppose Constitutional Court procedure

The Judicial Council of the Republic of North Macedonia and the Association of Judges of the Republic of North Macedonia issued a joint reaction over the activation of a mechanism to seek accountability by the Constitutional Court, after it determined that a judge of the Basic Civil Court Skopje had not implemented the Constitutional Court's decision in a case related to freedom of expression.

In their reaction, the institutions confirmed respect for the constitutional status and finality of Constitutional Court decisions, but warned that the independence and autonomy of regular courts and the statutory course of judicial proceedings must be preserved.

Legal context and call for restraint

They point out that the decision of the Basic Civil Court Skopje is not final and that an appeal has been filed against it which must be examined by the competent second-instance court, so any institutional action related to that non-final decision requires particular care so as not to create an impression of pressure or prejudicing the judicial decision.

"-In the specific case, Decision P4-240/22 of 4 May 2026 of the Basic Civil Court Skopje is not final and an appeal has been lodged against it which the competent second-instance court must decide. Therefore, the procedure is still ongoing, and the assessment of the legality of the first-instance decision belongs only to the competent second-instance court. In such circumstances, the Judicial Council of the Republic of North Macedonia and the Association of Judges of the Republic of North Macedonia consider that any institutional action related to the specific non-final court decision requires particular care and restraint, so as not to create the impression of prejudicing the outcome of the proceedings or of exerting pressure on the judges deciding in the specific case. The independence of the judiciary is not a privilege of judges, but a guarantee to citizens that an independent and impartial court will decide on their rights and obligations. The function of the courts does not consist of executing decisions of other state bodies, but in independently and impartially adjudicating based on the Constitution, the laws and ratified international treaties. Therefore, no body, regardless of its constitutional position, can determine or prejudice what decision a court should make in a specific case," the reaction reads.

In the statement they further emphasize that respect for the Constitutional Court and the protection of the independence of the courts belong to the same constitutional order and to the principle of the rule of law.

"-The Judicial Council of the Republic of North Macedonia and the Association of Judges of the Republic of North Macedonia remain firmly committed to consistent respect for the Constitution, the laws and the decisions of the Constitutional Court, but also to uncompromising protection of the independence of the judiciary, the right to a fair trial and the unobstructed functioning of the system of legal remedies. Only through institutional restraint, mutual respect for constitutional competences and consistent observance of legal procedures can the rule of law be ensured and citizens' trust in institutions be strengthened," the reaction adds.

This reaction comes in the context of the Constitutional Court's decision which, the court says, activated a mechanism for proceedings against a judge after he, when repeating the procedure in the case brought by journalist Natasha Stojanovska, did not apply the Constitutional Court's decision.

The Constitutional Court found that the judge relied on provisions of the Law on Civil Procedure and assessed that the Constitutional Court decision cannot be a basis for repeating the proceedings as a new fact or evidence, whereby, according to the constitutional judges, he did not take into account the finality, enforceability and general binding nature of the Constitutional Court's decisions.

The Constitutional Court recalled prior practice: after the adoption of Decision U.no.146/2021 of 12 July 2023, the Basic Civil Court Skopje accepted that Constitutional Court decisions may be taken as a new fact and new evidence and used them as a basis for repeating case MALVP-705/20 of 14.04.2021, and the same practice was later confirmed by the Skopje Court of Appeal with Decision GZ-118/24 of 07.11.2024.

The Constitutional Court's statement indicates that it upheld the protection of the freedom of expression of journalist Natasha Stojanovska and that, because their decision was ignored, the constitutional judges reported the procedure and the judge to the Public Prosecutor's Office and to the Judicial Council.

By such interventions the Constitutional Court has shown support for journalists whose safety was endangered on the evening of 27 April 2017, in the events that became known as "Bloody Thursday", when reporters were exposed to threats, intimidation and obstruction while reporting.

Journalists today filed lawsuits over the attacks that took place on 27 April in the Assembly, as part of renewed efforts to obtain judicial resolution for the incidents and the damages they suffered while reporting.

Photo: 'Sloboden Pechat' / Dragan Mitreski