North Macedonia
Basic Facts about the Country
Membership of the Council of Europe
17 December 1995
Entry into force of the European Convention on Human Rights
10 April 1997
Basic Facts about the Judiciary
Budget per inhabitant
€ 20.50
(2023)
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)
Overall number of judges
Number of professional judges per 100,000 inhabitants
21.4
Constitutional Court (State level)
Yes
The Constitutional Court
- decides on the conformity of laws with the Constitution;
- decides on the conformity of other regulations and of collective agreements with the Constitution and the laws;
- protects the freedoms and rights of individuals relating to the freedom of conviction, conscience, thought and public expression of thought, political association and activity as well as to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, religion, national, social and political affiliation;
- decides on competency conflicts between the holders of legislative, executive and judicial powers;
- decides on competency conflicts between the bodies of the Republic and the local self-government units;
- decides on the accountability of the President of the Republic;
- decides on the conformity of the programmes and statutes of the political parties and the associations of the citizens with the Constitution;
- decides on other issues determined by the Constitution.
- The Constitutional Court of North Macedonia has 9 judges, who are elected by Parliament by a majority vote. Two Judges are nominated by the President of the Republic, two by the Judicial Council and 5 by the Assembly.
- Judges are elected for a non-renewable term of 9 years. The President of the Court is elected by the judges from among their ranks for a non-renewable term of three years.
- Judges may only be dismissed for reasons defined in the Constitution by a two-thirds majority of the Court.
- The Constitutional Court decides on the conformity of laws with the Constitution on competency conflicts between the bodies of the Republic and the local self-government units; on the accountability of the President of the Republic; on the conformity of other regulations and of collective agreements with the Constitution and the laws; on the conformity of the programmes and statutes of the political parties and the associations of the citizens with the Constitution; and protects the freedoms and rights of individuals relating to the freedom of conviction, conscience, thought and public expression of thought, political association and activity as well as to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, religion, national, social and political affiliation; decides on competency conflicts between the holders of legislative, executive and judicial powers.
Public Prosecutors
- The Public Prosecutor’s Office is a single and autonomous state body. Its main task is carrying out legal measures against persons who have committed criminal and other offences.
- The Public Prosecutor is appointed by the Assembly upon a proposal of the government for a term of six years with the right to reappointment.
The Public Prosecutor can be dismissed for reasons described in the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office by the Assembly. The request for dismissal is submitted by the government upon a prior opinion from the Council of Public Prosecutors.
Judicial Governance
Type of governance system
Judicial Council
- Consists of 15 members, including:
- The President of the Supreme Court ex officio
- The Minister of Justice ex officio
- Eight members elected by the judges from their own ranks. Three of them belong to the communities that are not in the majority in North Macedonia, ensuring that equitable representation of citizens belonging to all communities is observed.
- Three members elected by the Assembly of North Macedonia with majority votes of the total number of MPs, and with majority votes from the total number of MPs who belong to the communities that are not in the majority in North Macedonia.
- Two members proposed by the President of North Macedonia, elected by the Assembly of North Macedonia; one of them belongs to the communities that are not in the majority in North Macedonia.
- The members of the Council serve a term of 6 years, renewable only once.
- The members of the Council elected by the Assembly of North Macedonia, on a proposal of the President of North Macedonia are from among university law professors, lawyers and other prominent jurists.
Court presidents
- Elected by the Judicial Council from the ranks of judges who have at least six years of uninterrupted judicial service in a court of the same or higher degree
- Elected for a term of four years with the right to another election in a court of the same degree
Council of Public Prosecutors
- Nine members (Public Prosecutor of North Macedonia, higher public prosecutors and the Basic Public Prosecutor from Skopje).
- The Collegiums of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of North Macedonia appoint two members of the Council of Prosecutors
- The Government of North Macedonia, upon a proposal by the Minister of Justice, appoints two members of the Council of Public Prosecutors.
- The members appointed by the Government of North Macedonia and the Collegiums of the Public Prosecutor’s Office have a four year term of office.
- Consists of nine members, including the Public Prosecutor of North Macedonia, higher public prosecutors and the Basic Public Prosecutor from Skopje. Two members are appointed by the Collegiums of the Public Prosecutor’s Office from the ranks of all the public prosecutors and deputy public prosecutors, and other two by the government, upon a proposal by the Minister of Justice.
- The members serve a term of four years.
Distribution of Responsibility
- elects and dismisses judges and lay judges; observing the equitable representation of all communities
- determines the termination of a judge’s office;
- elects and dismisses Presidents of Courts; observing the equitable representation of all communities
- monitors and assesses the work of the judges
- decides on the disciplinary accountability of judges;
- decides on revoking the immunity of judges;
- proposes two judges for the Constitutional Court from among the judges; and
- performs other duties stipulated by law.
- submits an annual report about its work to the Assembly of North Macedonia.
- Makes the assignment of judges by an annual work schedule
- Gives a written explanation upon previously obtained opinion from the general session of the Supreme Court of North Macedonia when a judge is transferred to another court division against his/ her will
Main tasks:
- Realisation of the procedure for appointment and discharge
- Determining the responsibility of the public prosecutors and the deputy public prosecutors
- Providing positive opinion on the appointment of a Public Prosecutor
- Acting on second instance in the procedure for determining disciplinary responsibility and incompetent working and achieving unsatisfactory results while performing the duties
- Preparing a working protocol
- Establishing on the basis of documents stating the diagnosis and analysis of a competent medical commission whether the Public Prosecutor and the Deputy Public Prosecutor permanently lose the mental and physical capacity for performing the function of a Public Prosecutor
Cooperation with other bodies:
- Following the decision of the Council of Public Prosecutors, the Public Prosecutor submits a proposal for dismissal of the Public Prosecutor or Deputy Public Prosecutor to the Parliament of North Macedonia.
- The Public Prosecutor’s Office upon prior consent by the Council of Public Prosecutors allocates the means approved with the Budget of North Macedonia by public prosecutor’s offices on the basis of measures and criteria.
- The Government of North Macedonia determines the number of the Deputy Public Prosecutors upon a proposal by the Minister of Justice and following a prior positive opinion of the Council of Public Prosecutors
Challenges
The levels of perceived judicial independence and trust in the judiciary among the public remain low in North Macedonia. According to the World Justice Project 2023 General Population Poll, only 24% of respondents stated they had a lot or some trust in judges and magistrates. The Poll found that public views on the pervasiveness of corruption among judges and magistrates deteriorated the most since the 2017 poll, with a staggering 73% of respondents believing that most or all magistrates were corrupt. Citizens have little trust in the independence of the judiciary from political influence as well, with 60% of respondents agreeing that top government officials seek to influence the promotion and removal of judges. In particular, 54% said that top government officials refuse to comply with court rulings that are not in their favour, and 55% that top government officials seek to limit the courts’ competencies and freedom to interpret the law.
Several reports have identified shortcomings regarding the judiciary’s independence and impartiality due to political interference. According to a Corruption Risk Assessment of the Judiciary carried out by the OSCE Mission to Skopje in 2023, over one-third of judges reported experiencing some form of influence or pressure from the executive branch of power (36%) or from representatives of political parties (37%). When in 2019 the President of the Supreme Court made public allegations of political interference in the Supreme Court’s work, attempts were made to dismiss her. The dismissal was stopped by the Judicial Council, notably mostly by those members elected by judges instead of by the Assembly.
In September 2023, the North Macedonian Parliament passed laws that amended the Criminal Code in a fast-track procedure. The amendments include changes to the crime of abuse of office and to the statute of limitations, as well as to investigative measures. The changes immediately impacted some high-profile cases. Ongoing cases had to be terminated either because of changes to the statute of limitations or because of the abolishment of the offence for which the suspects were being investigated. The fast-track procedure used to pass these amendments raised concerns about the lack of legislative scrutiny. In February 2025, the North Macedonian Constitutional Court held that the amendments violated constitutional principles and ordered Parliament to correct the respective laws.
North Macedonia’s Judicial Council consists of 15 members, out of which 13 are elected by different bodies. The two unelected members are the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice, both are members ex officio. The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) recommended that the Minister of Justice’s ex officio membership be abolished. It is concerned with an undue political influence stemming from the Minister’s membership. North Macedonia has not abolished the Minister’s membership, but it has implemented rules of procedure that state that the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court do not receive materials for procedures in which they do not participate. Further, the Minister of Justice does not receive information about examinations of judges’ responsibilities and about elections of judges or court presidents. Starting from 2019, the Minister of Justice has not attended any sessions of the Judicial Council. Nevertheless, the constitutional provisions granting the Minister of Justice significant power as a member of the Judicial Council remain. A proposal to change the relevant provisions has failed in Parliament on the grounds that the Minister of Justice de facto cannot exercise political influence on the Judicial Council as he or she does not attend meetings. But this practice could be abolished in the future, and the risk remains that the Minister of Justice intervenes and influences the Judicial Council.
(Attempted) political influence on the Judicial Council is also highlighted by executive intentions to disband the Judicial Council and the Council of Public Prosecutors. The EU Commission warned that this would undermine the judiciary’s independence and called for ensuring that judges are appointed independently and based on merit. In February 2025, the North Macedonian Prime Minister announced that his party will try to dismiss the five members of the Judicial Council who are elected by the assembly. This would be contrary to the Law on the Judicial Council which stipulates that only the Judicial Council itself can dismiss its members.
According to a 2024 EU report most judges do not believe that the Judicial Council is capable of ensuring judicial independence. During parliamentary and presidential elections, all appointments and disciplinary proceedings are suspended, which raises further concerns about the Council’s independence. Further, there are concerns about whether appointments and promotions of judges are merit-based as appointment decisions lack sufficient reasoning.
The composition of the Judicial Council has been a cause of concern due to the presence of the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice as members ex officio. In 2023, the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) recommended that the Minister of Justice’s ex officio membership be abolished due to concerns about undue political influence. While the recommendation was not followed, the government has adopted rules of procedure according to which the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court do not receive materials for procedures in which they do not participate. Further, the Minister of Justice does not receive information about examinations of judges’ responsibilities and about elections of judges or court presidents. Since 2019, the Minister of Justice has not attended any sessions of the Judicial Council. Nevertheless, the constitutional provisions granting the Minister of Justice significant power as a member of the Judicial Council remain. A proposal to change the relevant provisions failed in Parliament on the grounds that the Minister of Justice de facto cannot exercise political influence on the Judicial Council, as he or she does not attend meetings. However, this practice could be abolished in the future, potentially opening the door to the Minister’s undue influence over the Council.
Attempts to exercise political influence over judicial governance bodies have also been made through proposals to disband the Judicial Council and the Council of Public Prosecutors. In February 2025, the North Macedonian Prime Minister announced that his party would try to dismiss the five members of the Judicial Council who are elected by the assembly. This would be contrary to the Law on the Judicial Council, which stipulates that only the Judicial Council itself can dismiss its members. The European Commission warned that this would undermine the judiciary’s independence and called for ensuring that judges are appointed independently and based on merit. In March 2025, the Parliament voted on ‘interpellation motions’ against the five non-magistrate members of the Council, citing their unprofessional performance of duties that eroded the already low public trust in the judiciary. While these motions do not provide legal grounds for dismissal, they actively serve as de facto political no-confidence votes.
On top of the challenges posed by the increasing political pressure, the Council does not enjoy particularly high trust from judges either, with most judging it incapable of ensuring judicial independence per the 2024 EU report. The suspension of all appointments and disciplinary proceedings during parliamentary and presidential elections, and the lack of sufficient reasoning in appointment decisions and promotions that should be merit-based, cast further doubts on the integrity of the Council.
North Macedonia’s judiciary is faced with a shortage of judges. More than a third of judge positions were vacant in 2024, and in the upcoming years, the issue might be aggravated due to retirements. Filling the vacancies is particularly difficult, with recruitment processes often having to be repeated due to the lack of applications or eligible candidates. Moreover, the rigid interpretation of the Electoral Code, which prohibits employment procedures for judges from taking place during election periods, further delays recruitment processes and promotions. The severe understaffing of the judicial system is further exacerbated by the lack of training of new judges and prosecutors, as the admission process to the Academy has been on hold for two years for unclear reasons. While human resources strategies for the Courts and Public Prosecutor’s Office were adopted in 2020, the implementation remains poor.
The increasing inefficiency of the North Macedonian justice system has been highlighting in various reports over the last few years. In 2023, the clearance rate was below 100% in all case categories for both first and second instance, meaning that there were more incoming than resolved cases over the year. The clearance rate in second instance administrative cases has particularly deteriorated, dropping from 103% to 69%, while the disposition time tripled from 92 to 306 days. These negative developments have caused a significant backlog of cases that the courts are struggling to address.
Positive Developments & Achievements
Enhanced Transparency
Among the judiciary, measures were taken to enhance transparency. In 2022, the Council for Open Judiciary, composed of members of the Judicial Council, the Academy of Judges and Public Prosecutors, civil society organizations, and professional associations, was established. In 2024, it adopted an Action Plan for Open Judiciary aimed at improving transparency, increasing the quality and availability of information, and strengthening the Judicial Council’s supervisory function. Since then, there have been a number of improvements. Most courts now publish their rulings on their websites. Both the Judicial Council and the Council of Public Prosecutors improved their transparency, especially through more publications and increased media engagement. Moreover, in 2024, the Supreme Court amended its rules of procedure concerning the attendance of the public and the media at court sessions to improve transparency and public trust in the judiciary.
Improvements of disciplinary proceedings
In its 2024 report, the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) noted that North Macedonia has improved its procedures for disciplinary sanctions against judges. Possible infringements are now clearly defined, and judges can only be dismissed for the most serious infringements. Changes to the Law of the Judicial Council have also erased doubts about a lack of proportionality in disciplinary proceedings: dismissals of judges are only allowed in the most serious cases, as there are several other sanctions available to respond to judges’ disciplinary violations or misconduct. Therefore, GRECO is now satisfied that its recommendations were implemented.
Rankings and Surveys
Expert Recommendations
The Commission’s recommendations from last year were only implemented to a limited extent and therefore remain largely valid. In the coming year, North Macedonia should in particular:
- adopt a new Law on civil procedure, in line with European standards, and accelerate implementation of the Strategy for Judicial Reform;
- strengthen the Judicial Council by adopting a revised legislative framework and continue increasing its transparency and independence, in line with the recommendations of the 2023 peer review mission and the opinion of the Venice Commission, and step up implementation of the human resources strategies for the judiciary and the public prosecution service;
- ensure that the Automated Court Case Management Information System (ACCMIS) is fully functional and compatible with the level of complexity of court cases and the method for assessing judges and presidents of courts.
The Commission’s recommendations from last year were only partially implemented and are therefore largely valid. In the coming year, North Macedonia should in particular:
- adopt a new Law on civil procedure, in line with European standards and start implementing the new strategy on judicial reform;
- strengthen the Judicial Council by revising the legislative framework and its overall functioning to enhance its transparency and independence, in line with the recommendations of the 2023 peer review mission, and step up the implementation of the human resources strategies for the judiciary and the prosecution;
- ensure that the automated court case management information system (ACCMIS) is fully functional and compatible with level of complexity of court cases and the method or assessing judges and presidents of courts
Adopted by GRECO at its 95th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 27 November – 1 December 2023)
32. GRECO recommended that, in order to strengthen the independence of the judiciary from undue political influence, the ex officio membership of the Minister of Justice in the Judicial Council be abolished. [not implemented]
55. GRECO recommended that the disciplinary regime applicable to prosecutors be reviewed so that (i) infringements are clearly defined and that (ii) the range of available sanctions be extended to ensure better proportionality ensuring, in particular, that dismissal of a prosecutor is only possible for the most serious cases of misconduct. [partly implemented]
Compliance with European Courts' Judgements
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
State Performance
Number and % of rulings fully complied with
Number and % of rulings partly complied with
Number and % of rulings not complied with
Number and % of rulings where impossible to judge compliance
Number and % of rulings pending for 2 or more years
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
State Performance
Moderate
Implementation record
18
35 %
39
Further Readings
Acknowledgements
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung Rule of Law Programme South East Europe
The data and analysis for this country were contributed by the experts of the Rule of Law Programme South East Europe of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung