North Macedonia

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%). 

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, such as:

• Land Privatization Case: this investigation targeted senior government officials and local authorities accused of illegally privatizing public land through undervalued sales and fictitious tenders between 2010-2020, allegedly causing millions in state losses. Passed to the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office (SPO) in 2021, the probe relied on abuse of office charges under Article 353. The September 2023 Criminal Code amendments shortened the statute of limitations from 12 to 8 years, retroactively expiring limitations for most acts by September 2023, forcing termination despite strong evidence.
• SPO High-Level Corruption Probes: the SPO pursued multiple cases against former ministers, MPs, and party leaders for abuse of office (Article 353) and criminal association in rigged public procurement, including overpriced COVID-19 contracts and road construction tenders (2017-2022). Amendments decriminalized “negligent” abuse, reduced penalties below corruption thresholds, and cut statutes from 10-15 to 6-8 years, nullifying over 20 probes overnight—including the “Highway Scandal” implicating ex-PM Gruevski allies—sparking EU and GRECO condemnation.

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. 

North Macedonia faces ongoing concerns over inadequate safeguards against political influence in its prosecution service. Despite reforms aimed at independence, the Council of Public Prosecutors—still operating under the pre-2026 structure with mixed appointments (government, collegiums, ex-officio)—lacks robust protections against executive pressure, as noted in EU Rule of Law Reports. Government-appointed members and Parliament’s role in appointing the Chief Prosecutor create vulnerability to political leverage, especially amid stalled 2025 draft laws for peer elections. 

A stark example unfolded in 2025 with Chief Prosecutor Ljupco Kocevski. Elected in February 2024 for a six-year term, Kocevski faced a no-confidence motion passed by Parliament on July 29, 2025 (71 votes), followed by a government dismissal proposal in December citing “unauthorized disclosures,” procedural secrecy breaches, and institutional damage—allegedly tied to high-profile case handling like the Kocani nightclub fire. Kocevski resigned on December 15, 2025, ahead of Parliament’s vote, decrying it as political retaliation undermining prosecutorial autonomy; the Council of Public Prosecutors had issued a negative opinion on the dismissal. Critics, including the opposition SDSM, labeled it politicization, echoing Venice Commission warnings on using management issues as dismissal pretexts.