Documents: Judiciary - Impartiality and accountability

This report is a comprehensive overview of the various practices, policies and procedures in relation to the asylum system in Republic of North Macedonia in 2020. The Report emphasizes the key challenges faced by the asylum seekers and the refugees during the asylum procedure and during realization of other rights. In order to produce this document, we used: a) data gathered during representation of asylum seekers, refugee and migrants, persons under subsidiary protection and recognized refugees in North Macedonia; b) data gathered through monitoring of the condition and treatment of the authorized bodies towards the refugees and migrants in the Transit Centers where MYLA has accessible offices and c) data gathered during the attendance in the Reception Center for Asylum Seekers in Skopje. Furthermore, in order to prepare this Report, we gathered public information, as well as numerous available reports and literature.

The right to association and public assembly does not in itself mean only the association of citizens with a physical presence through which they would express dissatisfaction with a certain government decision that affects their rights and interests. In the last few years, there is a trend of increased use of Internet tools through which the citizens of a country can act in the online space just as they would act with a physical presence. In North Macedonia, the trend of using online tools is experiencing its peak with the proclamation of a Covid-19 pandemic. The purpose of this Analysis is to summarize the International Legal Framework on the freedom of peaceful assembly in the digital era and to present the state obligations. Also, to research the opportunities and challenges of the assemblies in the digital era and the impact of the new technologies in exercising of the right to free assembly. In the same time to make comparison and research on the concept of digitally-med

The reforms conducted under the auspices of the EU negotiations undoubtedly transformed the judiciary accelerated the fight against corruption and improved the system for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. Although these reforms enabled Croatia to become a member of the EU, their results and outcomes were not entirely in line with expectations. Moreover, in the case of Croatia like in many other Central and East European EU member states, it is evident and clearly visible that after the EU conditionality had passed many of the started reforms were not finalised due to changes of political priorities or were reversed (either by changing or choosing not to implement the current policies).

The Action Plan for the implementation of the 2017-2022 Strategy for Reform of the Judicial Sector (the Strategy) has indicators, using which the success rate of the implementation of the measures set forth under the Strategy is assessed. However, these indicators are primarily focused on monitoring the output of envisaged activities, while dedicating little attention to the outcomes and the impact of the Strategy. Furthermore, the indicators are concentrated to a great extent on the work of justice system institutions, without taking due account of the influence the Strategy has on citizens.

Judicial decisions shall be drafted in an accessible, simple, and clear language. Judges shall issue reasoned decisions, pronounced in public within a reasonable time, based on fair and public hearing. Judges shall use appropriate case management methods. In pursuance with the ECtHR case-law, the reasoning must contain a specific and explicit reply to key importance arguments, submissions and claims, which are decisive for the outcome of the proceedings, i.e., for the adoption of the court decision. The purpose of this analysis is to contribute to improving the quality of court decisions in the civil cases, to improve the procedure itself, as well as to contribute to improving the uniformity of decisions in order to respond to citizens’ expectations with regard to their right to a fair and just trial and access to justice.

The process of reform of the judiciary in Bulgaria is still ongoing, with no establishment of a solid and clearly defined framework for the judicial system or consensus amidst political parties, the judiciary, and the public on the concept for the development of the setup and organisation of the judicial system in sight. The role and place of the prosecution and investigation against the Prosecutor General and deputies thereof are the issues that fuel most of the debates and are a source of perpetual disagreement. The road towards the resolution of those fundamental issues spreads across the metaphorical minefield that is the legacy of prior amendments, including judgments of the Constitutional Court. The experience of Bulgaria indicates that the consensus of parliamentary parties alone is not sufficient to effect reforms as parliamentary representation tends to be too dynamic, especially in times of crises that follow one after another. A much broader agreement is required, and civil

Constitutional judiciary has been existing in Macedonia for almost six decades. The First Constitutional Court, as a separate constitutional order institution controlling constitutionality of laws and constitutionality and legality of other general legal acts, was introduced with the 1963 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia. Its organizational setting, powers and working procedures for exercising its jurisdiction were regulated in detail with a special law. In accordance with its powers, the Constitutional Court exercised additional a posteriori or conditional repressive control over the constitutionality of the laws by making decisions that had the legal effect of determining unconstitutionality of a law. Where the Assembly failed to harmonize the law within 6 months, the Constitutional Court would conclude, with a new decision, that such law was abrogated.