Status of implementation of judicial reforms

Implementation status of the Judicial Sector Reform Strategy 2017-2022

Last change: February 17 2021
Progress

Legend

Has progress
Some progress
No progress
* refers only to the years for which the monitoring of the Strategy for Judicial Reform was conducted

1.1. Стратешка насока: Воедначување на судска пракса

Indicators

1.1.1 Perception of the competence of judges view details

2019:
According to the survey of lawyers and public prosecutors: the most frequent mark is 4 (on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest mark).
2020:

1.1.2 Perception of the competence of public prosecutors view details

2019:
According to the survey of judges, lawyers and public prosecutors: the most frequent mark is 4 (most frequent answer, i.e. a median; on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest mark).

2020:

1.1.3 Perception of the application of standards for the improvement of the quality of court judgements view details

2019:
According to the survey of judges, lawyers and public prosecutors: the mark is 3.75 (on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest mark).

2020:

1.1.4 Number of opinions adopted by the Supreme Court about the case-law view details

2018:
Five legal opinions and 17 sentences/rulings were adopted and published on the website of this Court. The Supreme Court did not adopt or publish any principle legal opinions and general positions. 
2019:
Two principle legal opinions, four legal opinions and conclusions and nine sentences/rulings were adopted and published on the website of this Court. In 2019, the Supreme Court did not adopt and publish any general positions.
2020:

 

1.1.5 Percentage of judges who participated in continual trainings on various types of skills view details

2019:
117 judges, i.e. presidents of courts attended trainings on managing courts and on ethics, which represents 23% of the average number of judges in 2019 (512 judges).
2020:
 

1.1.6 Share of trainings, which include the ECtHR case-law or decisions and recommendations of UN human rights bodies view details

2018:
12%, i.e. 22 out of a total number of 189 trainings were trainings, which include analysis of published court judgements, focused on human rights related cases.
2019:
10%, i.e. 23 out of a total number of 222 developed trainings were trainings, which include the ECtHR case-law.  
2020:

1.1.7 Percentage of attendants of continual training (judges, public prosecutors, and expert associates), who completed training on the ECtHR case-law view details

2018:
30% of the total average number of judges and public prosecutors completed training on the ECtHR case-law (or 216 in total out of 720).
2019:
Out of the total average number of judges and public prosecutors of 703 in 2019, 46% completed training on the ECtHR case-law. 
2020: 

1.1.8 Percentage of the total number of judges who participated in continual training on the EU Acquis view details

2018:
The number of judges, who completed continual training on the EU Acquis was  5%.
2019:
The number of judges, who completed continual training on the EU Acquis was 45%.
2020:

1.1.9 Share of trainings which include analysis of published court judgements, focusing on human rights cases view details

2018:
The number of trainings, which include analysis of published court judgements focusing on human rights cases was 12%.  
2019:
The number of trainings, which include analysis of published court judgements focusing on human rights cases was 14%.  
2020: 

1.1.10 Number of meetings between judges working in various appellate circuits and judges of the Supreme Court (elaborating upon the case-law) view details

2018:
Judges of the Supreme Court and of appellate courts had three meetings on the topic of harmonization of the case-law.
2019:
Judges of the Supreme Court and of appellate courts had two meetings on the topic of harmonization of the case-law.
2020: 

1.1.11 Number of sessions of the Supreme Court deliberating upon the case-law view details

2019:
The Supreme Court had seven sessions elaborating upon the case-law.
2020:

1.2. Стратешка насока: Ревидирање на критериумите за оценување на судиите и јавните обвинители

Indicators

1.2.1 Objective and transparent merit-based criteria for selection of judges, while taking into consideration qualifications integrity, capacity, efficiency and and by fully applying the principles of gender equality and equitable representation view details

The basic criteria for election of judges are set forth under Article 45 of the Law on Courts. The Law Amending and Supplementing the Law on Courts, adopted in 2018 added the condition of active knowledge of one of the three most used languages in the European Union (English, French or German). Such condition was criticized in an opinion by the Venice Commission for being too difficult to be fulfilled and was therefore replaced under the last amendments to the Law on Courts with the condition of knowledge of  one of the three most used languages in the European Union (English, French or German). According to the Law on Courts, one of the conditions for election of a judge is that the person has good reputation, then to have the integrity required for the performance of the duties of a judge and to possess social skills required for the discharge of the duties of a judge, which is checked with integrity and psychological tests. This condition is also required to be fulfilled to be admitted as a candidate for initial training at the Academy for Judges and Public Prosecutors, with  the integrity and psychological tests being done as part of the exam for admission to the Academy for Judges and Public Prosecutors. The special requirements for election of a judge are stipulated in Article 46 of the Law on Courts. The two Reports of the Priebe led Senior Experts’ Group underline that the Academy for Judges and Public Prosecutors is to be maintained as the sole point of entry to the judiciary and public prosecution service.
 

1.2.2 Objective and transparent merit-based criteria for promotion of judges (election to a higher instance court, election for president of a court) while taking into consideration the qualifications integrity, capability, and efficiency and by fully applying the principles of gender equality and equitable representation view details

The special requirements for election of a judge are stipulated in Article 46 of the Law on Courts. Article 47 of the Law on Courts regulates the conditions and procedure for election of a president of a court. Following the amendments to the Law on Courts, adopted in 2018, there were no substantive changes in the special requirements for election of judges to higher instance courts, nor in the conditions for election of a president of a court. Unlike the 2018 amendments, the Law Amending and Supplementing the Law on Courts adopted in 2019 was favourably assessed by the Venice Commission.  The 2019 amendments introduce changes in the criteria for election of judges, i.e. Articles 46 and 47 of the Law on Courts were amended with a view to better and more precisely defining the conditions for election (promotion) of judges and for election of presidents of courts. Despite the fact that the Law Amending and Supplementing the Law on Courts stipulates that a person who has completed the initial training at the Academy may be elected as a judge at a first instance court, the Law also envisages the possibility that judges apply for transfer to another court of the same instance (first instance of appellate court) provided that they have four uninterrupted years of service as a judge in the same instance (first instance court of appellate court). These amendments increase the number of years of service as a judge required for election as a judge at an appellate court. Furthermore, unlike the previous solution, which stipulated the possibility of judges of appellate courts, of the Administrative Court and of the Higher Administrative Court to apply for the position, under the last amendments  to the Law on Courts46  a person who has at least six years of service as a judge at an appellate court at the time of applying for election and who has been favourably assessed by the Judicial Council of the Republic of Macedonia, in line with the Law on the Judicial Council of the Republic of Macedonia may be elected as a judge at the Supreme Court.

1.3. Стратешка насока: Функционален систем за пробација и други алтернативни мерки

Indicators

1.3.1 Change in the utilization of probation or of other alternative measures view details

2019:
The Probation Service started functioning in 2019, working during the year on 165 probation cases. The largest number of cases are related to monitoring of inmates conditionally released from serving a sentence  (111 cases), 43 cases are related to protective supervision of  persons under a suspended sentence, then one case  of supervision of  a person under community service order, and ten cases were referred by courts requesting the application of the risk assessment tool and submission of a probation report, containing a proposal for the best fitted sentence to be presented during the court procedure.   
2020:

1.4. Стратешка насока: Следење на резултатите и квалитетот на нотаријатот

Indicators

1.4.1 Number of proposals for institution of disciplinary proceedings against Notaries Public submitted to the Notary Chamber and number of adopted disciplinary measures view details

2019:
In 2019, the Disciplinary Panel of the Notary Chamber received 15 proposals for institution of disciplinary proceedings against Notaries Public (12 proposals submitted by the Minister of Justice following supervision inspections and three proposals submitted by the President of the Notary Chamber). The Disciplinary Panel of the Notary Chamber considered 13 proposals in total for institution of disciplinary proceedings submitted in 2019 (ten submitted by the Minister of Justice and three by the President of the Notary Chamber), and adopted the following disciplinary measures- five fines and five public reprimands. In one case, statute of limitations was established, and in one case the concerned Notary Public was established not be responsible.
 
In 2019, the Disciplinary Panel of the Notary Chamber considered five proposals for institution of disciplinary proceedings submitted in 2018 (four proposals submitted by the Minister of Justice and one by the President of the Notary Chamber) and adopted the following disciplinary measures- two public reprimands.  In one case, statute of limitations was established, and in two cases the concerned Notary Public was established not be responsible.
2020:

1.5. Стратешка насока: Континуирано следење на ефектите од извршувањето и на квалитетот на работењето

Indicators

1.5.1 Rate of enforcement of enforceable documents view details

2018:
Rate of enforcement of enforceable documents is 55,7%.
2019:
Rate of enforcement of enforceable documents is 44,5%.
A possible reason for the decrease of the rate of enforcement is the waves of strong criticism by citizens of the costs of enforcement, which resulted in the reduction of fees of enforcement agents and in the abolishment of the payment of certain types of costs.
2020:
 

1.5.2 Number of proposals for institution of disciplinary proceedings against enforcement agents submitted by the Chamber of Enforcement Agents and number of adopted disciplinary measures view details

2018:
The Disciplinary Panel of the Chamber of Enforcement Agents  instituted proceedings against two enforcement agents, who were found guilty and were ordered the disciplinary measure of a fine.
2019:
The Disciplinary Panel of the Chamber of Enforcement Agents  instituted proceedings against three enforcement agents, who were found guilty and were ordered the disciplinary measures of public reprimand, fines and permanent ban on the performance of the office of an enforcement agent (in one case).
2020:
 

1.6. Стратешка насока: Зачестена употреба на медијација од страна на јавни органи

Indicators

1.6.1 Number of cases referred for mediation by public authorities view details

2018:
The number of cases that the mediators responded they received from public bodies in 2018 is 128 cases.
The percentage of mediators who stated that they had received cases referred by public authorities is 36%.
2019:
The number of cases that the mediators responded they received from public bodies in 2019 is 89 cases.
The percentage of mediators who stated that they had received cases referred by public authorities is 50%.
2020:
 

1.6.2 Number of cases settled by mediation, in which the parties were public authorities view details

2018:
Number of cases settled by mediation, in which the parties were public authorities is 82.
2019:
Number of cases settled by mediation, in which the parties were public authorities is 58.
2020:

 

1.7. Стратешка насока: Стимулирање на примената на медијацијата во судските постапки

Indicators

1.7.1 Number of cases referred for mediation in pursuance with the Law on Justice for Children view details

2018:
There were no cases referred for mediation under the Law on Justice for Children.
2019:
There were no cases referred for mediation under the Law on Justice for Children.
2020:

 

1.7.2 Number of cases settled by mediation in pursuance with the Law on Justice for Children view details

2018:
There were no cases referred for mediation under the Law on Justice for Children. Hence no cases were settled.
2019:
There were no cases referred for mediation under the Law on Justice for Children. Hence no cases were settled.
2020:
 

1.7.3 Number of cases referred for mediation in pursuance with the Law on Consumer Protection view details

2018:
Number of cases referred for mediation in pursuance with the Law on Consumer Protection is 4 cases.
2019:
Number of cases referred for mediation in pursuance with the Law on Consumer Protection is 9 cases.
2020:
 

1.7.4 Number of cases settled by mediation in pursuance with the Law on Consumer Protection view details

2018:
Number of cases settled by mediation in pursuance with the Law on Consumer Protection is 1 case.
2019:
Number of cases settled by mediation in pursuance with the Law on Consumer Protection is 3 cases.
2020:

1.7.5 Success rate in commercial and labour disputes settled by mediation view details

Од 2016- 2019:
Success rate in commercial disputes settled by mediation is 28.3% (out of the total number of 567 cases, settlement was reached in 161 cases).
           
Success rate in labour disputes settled by mediation is 99.60% (out of the total number of 948 cases, 945 cases ended with a settlement).

2.1. Стратешка насока: Следење на ефикасноста на судството преку индикаторите утврдени во EU Justice Scoreboard (листа на резултати), СЕРЕЈ и други меѓународни стандарди

Indicators

2.1.1 Application of the Methodology of Judicial Statistics in following with the CEPEJ standards view details

Despite the fact that the Methodology of Judicial Statistics has been partially harmonized with relevant internationally accepted indicators, the Methodology is not applied in the practice, considering that in their regular reports institutions do not monitor the current values of indicators set forth under the Methodology. This deficiency is rectified to a certain extent with the help of civil society organizations, which monitor some of the values of relevant indicators.

2.2. Стратешка насока: Доследно спроведување на Акциониот план за решавање на старите предмети и следење на состојбата со нерешени предмети

Indicators

2.2.1 Number of pending cases view details

2019:
At the end of 2019, there were 73,550 pending cases, which represents an increase by 5,828 cases or 8.6% increase, compared with the situation at the end of 2018. The reason for the increase under this indicator in 2019 could be linked to the 11.4% increase of newly admitted cased in 2019, which could not have been dealt with the 6.2% increase of the number of cases courts resolved in the course of the year. In terms of levels of instances, there was a 9.4% increase of pending cases at first instance courts and an increase of 7.5% of pending cases in the second instance courts. In 2019, there was a 4.5% decrease of the number of pending cases at the Supreme Court, compared with the situation in 2018.
2020:

2.2.2 Success rate of first instance courts view details

2018:
The success rate of resolving cases in the first instance courts is 101.2%.
2019:
The success rate of resolving cases in the first instance courts is 96,5%. 
The reason for the backslide trend under this indicator in 2019 could be linked to the increase of the number of newly admitted cases in 2019.
2020:
 

2.2.3 Period required for resolving the backlog of cases at first instance courts view details

2018:
147,7 days are required for resolving pending cases at first instance courts.
2019:
152.8 days are required for resolving pending cases at first instance courts.
2020:
 

2.2.4 Number of backlog cases view details

2018:
The number of backlog of cases at the end of 2018 is 3,921.
2019:
The number of backlog of cases at the end of 2019 is 2,852.
According to categories, the number of backlog of cases was decreased as follows:
Number of cases pending for more than three years – 60% decrease;  – Number of cases pending for more than seven years – 46% decrease
The number of cases pending for more than ten years was decreased by a quarter. 
In all categories, the rate of resolved cases was increased.
2020: 
 
 

2.2.5 Number of cases in which a violation of the principle of trial within reasonable time was established view details

2018:
The number of cases in which a violation of this principle was established is 191.
The rate of cases in which such a violation was established is 24%.
2019:
In 2019, the total number of cases before the Supreme Court regarding this violation was reduced by 200, i.e. by 25%, compared with 2018.
The number of cases in which a violation of this principle was established is  165. 
The rate of cases in which such a violation was established is 27%
2020:

 

2.3. Стратешка насока: Усогласување на бројот на судии во Република Северна Македонија со европскиот просек по глава на жител

Indicators

2.3.1 Productivity rate in resolving cases view details

2019:
The least efficient appellate court spends in average 33% more per resolved case than the best cost-efficient appellate court. 
In average, the last ranked first instance court spends 2.6 times more per resolved case than the best cost-efficient first instance court.
2020:

 

2.3.2 Productivity rate in resolving cases view details

2019:
Compared with the situation in 2018, two appellate courts show increase of productivity, and two appellate courts show decrease of productivity (average number of resolved cases per judge).
16 first instance courts increased their productivity rate, while 11 first instance courts decreased their productivity rate.
The productivity rate of the first or best ranked court is 4.1 times higher than the productivity rate of the last ranked court.
2020:

2.4. Стратешка насока: Подобрување на капацитетите на судската и јавно обвинителската служба

Indicators

2.4.1 Perception of the treatment, professionalism, and competence of the judicial service view details

2019:
Judges most often assessed the expertise and competency of expert associates with 4 (46%) on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest mark. This mark was also most often given by surveyed lawyers and public prosecutors (35%). However, significant number of lawyers and public prosecutors gave the mark of 3 (34%). 71% of surveyed citizens who were parties to court proceedings answered that there was no case or there were rare cases in which court proceedings were delayed because of mistakes made by the court staff. 60% of surveyed citizens agree that the court staff treats people equally, regardless of their income, origin, gender, and religion, while 40% disagree
2020:

2.5. Стратешка насока: Целосна функционалност на веб порталот www.sud.mk

Indicators

2.5.1 Percentage (share) of court judgements published on the portal view details

2019:
Courts either do not provide data about the number of published judgements or keep records of published judgments for several years collectively, and not per year.
2020:

2.5.2 Application of standards for online publishing of court judgments view details

2019:
The majority of judges (59%) and administrative staff (53%) consider that the standards regarding the deadlines for online publication of judgments are respected., i.e. applied, while about 40% of them consider that they are not applied. As regards the satisfaction rate with respect to the online publication, the respondents most often gave the medium mark (39% judges,, 25% administrative staff and 27% lawyers/public prosecutors), while the second most frequently given mark is the highest mark of 5 by judges (24%), i.e. 4 by administrative staff, lawyers/public prosecutors (21% and 19% respectively). As regards the satisfaction rate with the online searchability of court judgements, the most often given mark by judges and administrative officers is 4 out of the possible 5 (39% and 29%, respectively), while lawyers/public prosecutors most often gave the medium mark 3 (23%). However, 15% of judges, 26% of administrative staff and 24% of lawyers/public prosecutors assessed the satisfaction rate with the searchability of judgements with the lowest marks of 1 and 2.
2020:

2.5.3 Availability of online information for the public about the justice system view details

2019:
The following targeted information are available: a) online forms for the public and for companies -at the sud.mk portal forms-requests and payment forms for various types of documents issued by the court (certificates, confirmations and similar) are posted b) information intended for persons with hearing or visual impairments – the sud.mk portal does not provide for reasonable accommodation for these persons; however, information is posted about responsible authorized persons tasked with accompanying persons with disabilities and enabling useful access to information at the court: c) information intended for persons who do not speak the official language – the sud.mk portal is also available in a simple rudimentary English language version. The following types of targeted information is not available: a) education about rights of citizens in the justice system provided with interactive tools; b) computer stations at courts with internet access available to citizens: c) inter-active online simulation facilitating the assessment whether a person is eligible for legal aid  is not available; there is information posted on the website of the Ministry of Justice about the conditions the applicant for free legal aid is required to fulfil; however, these are based on old parameters; d) information intended for children- websites of some courts only offer
contact information about lawyers specialized for the Law on Justice for Children.
2020:

2.5.4 Number of visitors of the web portal view details

2.5.5 Number of court judgements published on the web portal www.sud.mk view details

2019:
In the context of online publication of court judgements, judges most frequently assessed their satisfaction with the medium mark of 3, on a scale from 1 to 5. 10% of judges are dissatisfied, while 46% of them are partially or completely satisfied with the manner of publication of judgements. The satisfaction level with the online publication of court judgements is most often assessed with a medium mark of 3 also by court staff (25%), as well as by lawyers and public prosecutors (27%).
2020:

3.1. Стратешка насока: Собирање, обработка и анализа на статистичките податоци за работата на судовите и јавните обвинителства во ССРМ и СЈОРМ

Indicators

3.1.1 Types of systems for monitoring and evaluation of court activities view details

2019: 
a) Annual reports on the work of courts; the Supreme Court and appellate courts regularly publish annual reports. Out of 27 first instance courts, only eight published an annual report about their work, one court published an analysis of the work on cases, four published only annual statistics about the cases, five published monthly statistics about cases, which was not summarized for the entire year and nine courts did not publish any reports about their work. This represents a slide back  compared with the situation in 2018, when 12 first instance courts published annual reports, seven published only annual statistics about cases, three published monthly statistics about cases, which was not summarized for the entire year, and five courts did not publish any reports about their work.

b) Indicators of results and quality: defined under the Methodology of Judicial Statistics.

c) IT system for court case management. The ACMIS software has been installed in all courts and it registers, allocates and monitors the movement of court cases within the court system.

d) IT system generating statistics about court activities. There is a software for judicial statistics, installed at the Judicial Council. However, its functioning is questionable, considering that except for one indicator, in their reports, institutions do not publish current values of indicators envisaged under the Methodology of Judicial Statistics. Respondents said that the IT court system (ACMIS) has or partially has five types of data: 1) in the context of data necessary for preparation of annual reports by courts, respondents most often confirmed that the system has such data (30%), 27% stated that such data was partially available, while 23% said that there was no such data; 2) as regards periods for statute of limitations in specific cases, 29% respondents answered that the system has such data, i.e. that it offers partial data, while  21% stated that the system does not offer such data; 3) data about the number of postponed hearings: 32% of the respondents said that the IT system does not have any such data, 29% of them said that there is only partial data, while only 21% think that there is such data; 4) as regards the value of indicators under the Methodology of Judicial Statistics,  25% of the respondents  answered that the system partially offers such data,  22% of respondents said that there is no such data and  16%  said that there was such data; 5) in respect of other data of importance for collecting statistics in the justice system, 15% of the respondents confirmed that the IT system does offer data, while 26% of them said that there was partial data, and 10% said that there was no data.

e) Court staff specialized for monitoring and evaluation. Some of the court staff at courts and at the Judicial Council prepare periodical reports about the work of respective courts. 

f) Surveys conducted among users of court services and legal professionals. State institutions do not conduct such surveys. However, this is periodically done by civil society organizations.
2020:

3.2. Стратешка насока: Зајакнување на капацитетите за односи со јавноста

Indicators

3.2.1 Standards for providing information about cases to the parties view details

2019:
About 46% of surveyed citizens are satisfied with the information provided by courts about the date, time, and number of the courtroom for proceedings in the specific case, while 28% are dissatisfied, and 18% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. 41% of respondents are partially or completely satisfied with provided information about the stage in which their case is, while 35% are dissatisfied, and 21% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. In the context of information about delayed hearings, 38% of respondents are satisfied with the information they were provided with, 37% are dissatisfied and 15% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. 44% of respondents are satisfied with the availability court documents about their case, while 33% are dissatisfied, and 20% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
2020:

3.2.2 Openness of procedures to the public and capacities of courtrooms to accommodate members of the public and media outlet representatives view details

2019:
At the new building of the Skopje Criminal Court, where proceedings for which there is the highest public interest mostly take place, the conditions for the presence of the public have been improved. However, often media outlets and members of public present at the hearings are not able to follow the hearings because the sound system is turned off.
In its Monitoring Report of November 2019, the Coalition All for Fair Trials states that at the hearing in the case “TORTURA (Torture) KBR1959/17, the public and the experts were excluded when a video recording was shown, without the court offering any reasoning for excluding them.
2020:

3.2.3 Availability of trainings for court staff for various types of communication view details

2019:
In 2019, 62% of the total number of presidents of courts (21 out of 34) attended specialized training on public relations (specialized training for presidents of courts), while 3% (14) of the remaining judges attended training on public relations.
2020:

3.2.4 Number of published periodical reports on categorized expenditures of courts view details

2019:
Two annual reports were published: 1) The Annual Report of the Judicial Council has a Chapter elaborating upon expenditures of the judiciary, categorized according to: salaries and remunerations, goods and services, transfers and capital expenditures; 2) Presentation of expenditures according to the above categories is given in the Report on the execution of the judicial budget, which however also contains a review of expenditures according to budget programs and according to budget items and sub-items.
2020:

3.3. Стратешка насока: Изедначување на формата на годишните извештаи за работа на судовите, јавните обвинителства, ССРМ и СЈОРМ

Indicators

3.3.1 Progress in the process of revising the methodology of judicial statistics view details

2019:
The revised Methodology of Judicial Statistics was not published; the review of published annual reports on the work of courts shows differences in the reports’ structure; furthermore, the reports do not contain data about the value of indicators set forth under the Methodology (with the exception of the indicator about the total number of backlog cases), then about the duration of proceedings according to types of civil cases, i.e. grounds for criminal cases and about the period of resolving the court case, i.e. duration of specific stages of the proceedings, outcomes and measures ordered in criminal cases. The same considerations apply to the Annual Report of the Judicial Council, which furthermore lacks data about recusals per court, as well as data about cases settled by mediation in civil proceedings. However, the Report of the Judicial Council does offer a review of the situation with backlog of cases, according to categories of their duration.
2020:

4.1. Стратешка насока: Координација на реформата во правосудниот сектор

Indicators

4.1.2 Existence of a functional analysis and research unit or staff at the Judicial Council and at the Ministry of Justice view details

2019:
The Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice do not have sufficient number of staff to work on analysis and research.
2020:

4.1.3 Frequency of consultations about legislative amendments having a direct impact on the justice system view details

2019:
Most of the judges (54%) and lawyers (64%) answered that the Government consults them only occasionally when it comes to initiatives for legislative amendments having a direct impact on the justice system. Different from them, public prosecutors mostly replied (48%) that they are rarely consulted.
2020:

4.1.4 Capacity for efficient budgeting of courts and of public prosecutor’s offices view details

2019:
As regards the capacity for efficient budgeting of courts, lawyers and public prosecutors most often (30%) assessed it with the mark 4 on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is the best mark, while 26% gave a medium  mark of 3. 28% of respondents gave the lowest marks (1 and 2).

As regards the capacity for efficient budgeting of public prosecutor’s offices, lawyers, and public prosecutors most often (35%) assessed it with the lowest mark 1, while 27% gave the medium mark of 3.
2020:

4.1.5 Change in the situation with strategic planning and policy-making in the sector view details

2019:
Lawyers and court staff most often answered that in the period from 2017 to 2020 there were no changes in the situation with strategic planning and policy-making in the justice sector (49% and 37%, respectively). Judges most often assessed the situation as improved (48%), yet significant 44% of the judges consider that there were no changes.
2020:

4.1.1 Existence of a functional unit or staff at the Judicial Council and at the Ministry of Justice for strategic planning, monitoring and coordination of the reform view details

2019:
The Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice do not have sufficient number of staff for strategic planning, monitoring and coordination of the reform.
2020:

4.2. Стратешка насока: Следење на имплементацијата на Стратегијата

Indicators

4.2.1 Number of debates with stakeholders about the results of the implementation of the Strategy view details

2019:
In 2019, the Council for Implementation of the Strategy for Reform of the Judicial Sector had four sessions, at which stakeholders debated about the results achieved and gave recommendations for the future implementation of the Strategy.
2020:

4.2.2 Number of recommendations resulting from the debates for undertaking corrective measures view details

2019:
Recommendations were defined relating to six areas.
2020:

5.1. Стратешка насока: Оптимизација на судската мрежа

Indicators

5.1.1 Number of debates on the optimization of the court network view details

2019:
The Analysis of the Court Network of the Republic of Macedonia was presented at the tenth session of the Council for Implementation of the Strategy for Reform of the Judicial Sector, held on 6 February 2019.
2020:

5.1.2 Number and implementation of recommendations for optimization of the court network view details

2019:
In December 2018, the Ministry of Justice produced the Analysis of the Court Network in the Republic of Macedonia. The Analysis states that the rationalization of courts requires a more detailed analysis of each individual court, which has not been made thus far. Based on the said analysis, following the 2019 amendments and supplements of the Law on Courts, in 2020, the Gevgelija First Instance Court, the Kavadarci First Instance Court and the Kichevo First Instance Court became courts with expanded competences.
 
With a view to determining the realistically required number of judges and courts, in addition to the prepared Analysis of the court network of the Republic of Macedonia (regarding first instance courts), a Functional analysis of appellate courts and a Functional analysis of the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Macedonia were also developed.
2020:

5.2. Стратешка насока: Самостоен и одржлив судски буџет, конзистентен на законската определба од бруто националниот доход

Indicators

5.2.1 Allocations for courts view details

2018:
0,28% of the GDP
Calculated per capita, there is an increase of MKD 885 per capita.
2019:
0.29% of the GDP
Calculated per capita, there is an increase of MKD 999 per capita
2020:
 

5.2.2 Criteria for setting the judicial budget view details

2019:
Even though there is an independent Judicial Budget Council, the judiciary does not succeed in getting the required level of funding. This can be illustrated by the fact that in 2019 the finally approved budget for the judiciary is only 66% of the requested funds, the request being based on realistic needs of individual entities of the judiciary- budget beneficiaries.
2020:

5.2.3 Structure of the judicial budget view details

2019:
There is evident dominant share of 72% of the category 40-salaries and remunerations. Yet, there is a decrease compared with 2018, when this category had almost 80% share. Category 42- goods and services, which had a share of 12.76% is not sufficient to cover for all needs deriving from the regular work of courts. Compared with the structure of the budget in countries of the European Union, the share of capital expenditures (7.25%), which includes investments in computer and software modernization, is not at the required level. However, there is an increase of the share of this category compared with 2018, when it took up only 4.07%. Transfers amount to 7.76%.
2020:

5.2.4 Ratio of coverage of real expenditures for justice administration under the annual judicial budgets view details

2019:
In 2019, the finally approved budget for the judiciary was only 66% of the requested funds, which were based on realistic needs of individual entities in the judiciary-budget beneficiaries. This is an improvement compared with 2018, when this ratio was 64%.
2020:

5.3. Стратешка насока: Зголемување на кадарот во јавнообвинителската служба

Indicators

5.3.1 Productivity rate view details

2018:
104 resolved criminal charges per public prosecutor in 2018.

2019:

2020:

6.1. Стратешка насока: Правилно постапување со зајакнување на правата на одбрана и заштита на човековите права во кривичната постапка

Indicators

6.1.1 Satisfaction of the parties with the possibility provided by the court to each of the parties to present their evidence and challenge the evidence of the other party view details

2019:
As many as 98% of the surveyed citizens (parties to criminal proceedings) consider that it is important that each party is given the opportunity to present their evidence in the case and challenge the evidence of the other party. 41% of the respondents are relatively satisfied with the possibility they have (they gave the mark 5 or 4) to present and challenge the evidence, while 32% are relatively dissatisfied (they gave the mark of 1- completely dissatisfied or 2).
2020:

6.1.2 Perception of parties as to the degree to which judges and prosecutors respect the rights of defendants and of victims view details

2019:
About 90% of respondents completely or partially agree that public prosecutors and judges respect the rights of defendants and damaged parties to the proceedings, as opposed to about 10% of them who disagree.
2020:

6.1.3 Perception of parties as to whether courts treat people equally regardless of their income, ethnic affiliation, social origin, gender, and religion view details

2019:
58% of respondents – citizens fully or partially agree that judges treated people equally regardless of their income, origin, gender, and religion, while 41% disagree.
60% of surveyed citizens agree that the court staff treats people equally, regardless of their income, origin, gender, and religion, while 40% of them disagree.
2020:

6.1.4 Perception of parties as to whether women-victims of sexual or other gender-based violence receive a fair treatment by the court view details

2019:
In the context of rights of parties to proceedings, the level of respect for the rights in cases of sexual and other gender-based violence was also examined. As many as 53% of lawyers and prosecutors have worked on such cases. Respondents who have worked on such cases were additionally asked whether they agree that women – victims of sexual and other gender-based violence received a fair treatment during the proceedings. Most of them, i.e. 62% completely agree that women received a fair treatment in the proceedings, while 38% agree partially. 
2020:

6.1.5 Perception of parties of the respect for the presumption of innocence principle view details

2019:
40% of surveyed citizens are completely or partially satisfied with the respect for the presumption of innocence principle by the court, while 36% are dissatisfied, and 14% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
30% of surveyed citizens are satisfied with the respect for the presumption of innocence principle by the public prosecutor’s office, while 39% are dissatisfied and 8% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
19% of surveyed citizens are satisfied with the respect for the presumption of innocence principle by the media, while 50% are dissatisfied and 10% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
2020:

6.1.6 Perception of whether judges are free to adopt decision without direct or indirect interference by the Government or politicians view details

2019:
Most of the lawyers and public prosecutors (47%) consider that the executive power often interferes with judges in adopting their decisions, while 34% stated that often there is such interference also by Members of Parliament.
Largest number of judges said that they did not face interference by presidents of courts in adopting their decisions: (93% of these respondents said that this never happens or happens rarely), civil society organizations (83% of these respondents answered that this never happens or happens rarely), representatives of other countries (80% of these respondents answered that this never happens or happens rarely) and representatives of international organizations (81% of these respondents answered that this never happens or happens rarely). As regards other factors attempting to influence the decisions, 86% of the respondents answered that there were such factors.
2020:

6.1.7 Number of planned trainings for judges and public prosecutors focused on strengthening the rights of defence and protection of human rights in criminal proceedings view details

2019:
Number of planned trainings for judges and public prosecutors focused on strengthening the rights of defence and protection of human rights in criminal proceedings: 9 in 2019.
2020:

6.1.8 Number of completed trainings for judges and public prosecutors focused on strengthening the rights of defence and protection of human rights in criminal proceedings view details

2019:
Number of completed trainings for judges and public prosecutors focused on strengthening the rights of defence and protection of human rights in criminal proceedings is 8.
2020:

6.2. Стратешка насока: Подобрување на системот за правда на децата

Indicators

6.2.1 Total number of children aged 14 to 18 serving the measure of staying at an educational-correctional facility longer than a year view details

2019:
February 2020 inclusive, three children aged 14 to 18 serve the measure of staying at an educational-correctional facility longer than a year, serving the measure at the Tetovo Educational-Correctional Institution.
2020:

6.2.2 Total number of children aged 14 to 18 serving the measure of staying at an educational-correctional facility longer than three years view details

2019:
February 2020 inclusive, there were no children aged 14 to 18 serving the measure of staying at an educational-correctional facility longer than three years, at the Tetovo Educational-Correctional Institution.
2020:

6.2.3 Total number of young people aged 18 to 23 serving the measure of staying at an educational-correctional facility longer than three years view details

2019:
Responding to a request  for information about the “Total number of young people aged 18 to 23 serving the measure of staying at an educational - correctional facility longer than three years”,71 the Directorate for the Execution of Sanctions answered that a total number of three children aged 14 to 23 serve the measure longer than a year at the Tetovo Educational-Correctional Institution.
2020:

6.2.4 Total number of children-victims of crimes who received free legal aid in the course of the year view details

2018:
No applications for approval of free legal aid to children- victims of crimes were filed with the Ministry of Justice.
2019:
No applications for approval of free legal aid to children- victims of crimes were filed with the Ministry of Justice.
2020:

6.2.5 Number and profile of attendants of continual training at the AJPP, who completed training for treatment of children-victims view details

2018:
In 2018, 44 judges, 40 public prosecutors, 26 expert associates from the courts and the public prosecutor’s offices, 13 lawyers and 2 attendants of initial training completed such training at the AJPP.
2019:
In 2019, 8 judges, 12 public prosecutors, 2 expert associates from the courts and the public prosecutor’s offices and 15 representatives of the Ministry of the Interior completed such training at the AJPP.
2020:

6.2.6 Number of trainings organized as part of the continual training at the AJPP relating to treatment of children-victims view details

2018:
In 2018, there were seven events, of which 6 debates and one training of trainers event.
2019:
In 2019 there were two debates.
2020:


 
 

7.1. Стратешка насока: Превенција наспроти репресија како основна цел на прекршочната постапка

Indicators

7.1.1 Share of preventive measures (decision, education) compared with repressive measures (fine, settlement, misdemeanour charges) in the total number of measures ordered following inspection supervision view details

2019:
Preventive measures (decision, education) are evidently predominant compared with repressive measures (fine, settlement, misdemeanour charges) in the total number of measures ordered following inspection supervision, taking up a share of 85%.
2020:

7.1.2 Percentage of cases in which settlement proceedings were instituted, as compared with the percentage of cases in which misdemeanour charges were filed view details

2019:
The settlement procedure is more often applied (64%) compared with institution of misdemeanour charges.
2020:

8.1. Стратешка насока: Воспоставување стабилен граѓанско правен систем преку пополнување на постоечките правни празнини и негово усогласување со европските стандарди и современите општествени текови

Indicators

8.1.1 Perception of parties as to whether courts treat people equally regardless of their income, national or social origin, gender, or religion view details

2019:
The majority of surveyed citizens completely or partially agree that judges and the court staff treat people equally regardless of their income, national or social origin, gender of religion.   About third of citizens do not consider that there is equal treatment.
Lawyers completely or partially agree that judges and the court staff do not discriminate. However, almost 13% of them consider that there is no equal treatment.
2020:

8.1.2 Satisfaction of parties with the possibility to present before the court their evidence and to challenge the evidence of the other party view details

2019:
59% of surveyed citizens were relatively satisfied with the manner in which they were provided with the possibility to present their evidence, 14% were relatively dissatisfied, while 23% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
 
63% of surveyed lawyers were relatively satisfied with the manner in which they were provided with the possibility to present their evidence, while 38% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
2020:

8.1.3 Satisfaction of parties with the manner in which the judge heard witnesses view details

2019:
53% of surveyed citizens were relatively satisfied with the manner in which the judge heard the parties, 16% were relatively dissatisfied, while 18% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
 
Half of the lawyers were relatively satisfied with the manner in which the judge heard the parties, while the other half were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
2020:

8.1.4 Satisfaction of parties with the duration of proceedings view details

2019:
45% of surveyed citizens who have been parties to civil proceedings are not satisfied with the duration of proceedings. The main reason for the dissatisfaction with the duration of the proceedings, underlined by dissatisfied citizens, are the long periods between scheduled hearings. Citizens are also dissatisfied with the frequent delays of hearings.
 
Most of surveyed lawyers (44%) assessed their satisfaction with the duration of court proceedings with the mark of 3, on a scale from 1 to 5. As many as 63% of respondents had three to five delayed, i.e. not held hearings in the last civil law proceedings in which they appeared before first instance courts. 12% of respondents had more than five delays or their hearings were not held. Only 6% of surveyed lawyers and prosecutors did not have any delayed hearings. Lawyers were asked about the most often reasons for the delays in court proceedings. The three top reasons, which often or occasionally lead to delays in civil proceedings are deficiencies of laws (88%), returning cases for retrial  at first instance courts (75%) and obstacles raised by the parties to the proceedings themselves (56%).
2020:

8.1.5 Number of courts the websites of which have clearly posted data about the required costs for proceedings view details

2019:
The Supreme Court and appellate courts have not posted any such data.
 
Costs for various certificates, confirmations or certification of documents: 13 first instance courts have published the fees and data about accounts to which fees can be paid; one court has published the fees, but has posted information for payment accounts only for certified copies of the penal records; five courts have published the fees and payment accounts for some of the certificates; and three courts have published only the payment accounts, having posted no data about the fees. Five first instance courts have not published any information about such costs.
 
Costs for other proceedings and flat rates for certain fees-costs: two first instance courts have published data about fees and payment forms; one court has published only information about fees, but not about payment accounts; eight courts have published only information about payment accounts, but not
information about the costs; one court has published information about fees only for inheritance procedure;15 first instance courts have published no information in this context.
2020: