On September 2, 2025, the 17th session on Chapter 23 – Judiciary and Fundamental Rights was held, featuring a comprehensive discussion on topic: “European Standards for Constitutional Judiciary as a Challenge for the Constitutional Court of the Republic of North Macedonia”. The session was organized within the NCEU-MK project, supported by the Delegation of the European Union and the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic through SlovakAid.
The session was officially opened by Mileva Gjurovska, National Coordinator of NCEU-MK, who emphasized in her opening address the importance of maintaining the Convention’s continuity as a platform which, over the past eight years through 72 sessions, has enabled the involvement of all relevant stakeholders in reform processes. She recalled that constitutional judiciary reforms were already on the agenda in 2019, but the need for their improvement is even more pressing today. Gjurovska underlined that while the EU does not prescribe a specific model for a constitutional court, it consistently stresses the institution’s key role in driving judicial reforms, aligning laws with the constitution, and ensuring judicial independence. She cautioned that constitutional courts in candidate countries must not be instrumentalized for political purposes but should act as active guardians of the rule of law.
The panel discussions started with a speech from Ambassador Andrej Lepavcov, Co-Chair of Working Group 3, who stressed that the perception of the rule of law is a crucial indicator in the EU accession process. He noted that North Macedonia is grouped with Montenegro, Serbia, and Albania in joint European Commission reports, which further increases the responsibility to deliver visible results. He highlighted the need for the Constitutional Court to operate transparently and independently from political influence, particularly in relation to sensitive legislation such as the Law on the Use of Languages, which had been challenged and sparked extensive public debate about its constitutionality and compliance with the Ohrid Framework Agreement and European standards.
The first panel began with an expert presentation by Ana Pavlovska-Daneva, Constitutional Court judge and professor at the Faculty of Law, “Ss. Cyril and Methodius” University in Skopje. She addressed the issue of legal gaps arising from the failure of institutions to act upon the Constitutional Court’s decisions. As an example, she cited the Electoral Code case, where the voting threshold was reduced (from 1% to 0.95%) through a non-transparent procedure, describing it as “borderline mocking the Constitutional Court.” The most alarming case, she said, was Article 353 of the Criminal Code (abuse of official position), where the Court gave the parliament a six-month deadline to amend the law, warning of a “serious legal vacuum.”
This was followed by a presentation of Croatia’s experience, delivered by Maša Maročini-Zrinski from the Constitutional Court of Croatia. She shared cases such as “Statileo,” where the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of property rights due to prolonged restrictive measures. She emphasized that a key factor in successfully resolving such cases was the establishment of legislative mechanisms ensuring proportionality and balancing the interests of all parties, as well as maintaining regular dialogue between the constitutional judiciary, parliament, and the public.
The second panel discussion opened with remarks by Judge Mirjana Lazarovska-Trajkovska, who expanded the debate by highlighting institutional practices that, while formally accepting Constitutional Court decisions, often delay their effects through urgent legislative procedures or by reintroducing identical or similar provisions. She warned that this leads to chronic disregard of court rulings, eroding public trust and undermining the legitimacy of the judicial system. She proposed setting clear monitoring and accountability mechanisms for the implementation of decisions, including a requirement for the Assembly to publicly and transparently report on every delay or failure to act.
The final speaker, Denis Presova, professor at the “Iustinianus Primus” Faculty of Law, focused on European standards and the role of the Venice Commission’s “Rule of Law Checklist” as a reference tool for assessing the rule of law. He noted that North Macedonia lacks predictability and a systematic approach in integrating constitutional court decisions into the legislative process. This was evident, he said, in cases like the Law on the Use of Languages, where the court’s decision was not followed up by timely measures from the Assembly, resulting in prolonged political tensions and ambiguity in the law’s implementation. Presova stressed that such situations create the impression that the Constitutional Court is left to bear the consequences of other institutions’ inaction and called for clearly defined responsibilities and deadlines.
Following the presentations, participants engaged in a discussion emphasizing that frequent legislative interventions through fast-track procedures, such as the amendments to the Criminal Code, generate instability and undermine the predictability of the legal system. Participants pointed out that media discourse often trivializes the essence of constitutional court rulings, framing them through daily political narratives, which further reduces public trust. It was proposed to consider introducing preventive mechanisms that would allow the Assembly to seek the Constitutional Court’s opinion already during the drafting stage of laws, to avoid their subsequent annulment.
The session concluded that constitutional judiciary in North Macedonia faces the challenge of strengthening its role as an active guardian of the rule of law amid political tensions and institutional inertia. Experts assessed that concrete and urgent steps are needed to establish clear procedures for implementing constitutional court decisions, increase transparency in appointments, and provide systematic education for key decision-makers.