This activity requires needs analysis and upgrading the judicial statistics software, then implementation
of the system and development of analyses and generating reports, in following with indicators under the Methodology of Judicial Statistics.
The Methodology defines 11 indicators for analysis and monitoring of the results of the judiciary, under which courts are obliged to gather, process, and publish data. However, this is not implemented.
Furthermore, the Methodology envisages that scientific and research institution should have direct access to processed statistics and analyses. This too has still not been implemented.

The Action Plan accompanying the Strategy envisages the establishment of functional working bodies, which are to monitor the situation with the backlog of old and pending cases and are to develop and propose a plan for overcoming the backlog of cases, envisaging in this context as well the measure of submitting regular monthly reports to the Judicial Council of the Republic of North Macedonia by presidents of courts on the backlog of cases and on pending cases, which is to result in an annual 10% reduction of the number of old and pending cases, starting with 2019.
2019:
At the end of 2019, there were 97,091 pending cases, which represents an increase by 5,483 cases, compared with the situation in 2018.
2020:
At the end of 2020, there were 99,594 pending cases, which represents an increase of 2,503 cases, compared with the situation in 2019.

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:
In 2020 the success rate was 99.44%, which is primarily owed to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite all undertaken measures and activities aimed at reducing the backlog of cases in courts.

***The success rate is calculated as the ratio of resolved/closed cases in a given period versus new cases in the given period *100.

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:
 

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: 
At the end of 2020, there were 2,708 backlog cases, which is a 5% reduction compared to their number in 2019.
 

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:
In 2020, violation of this principle was established in 144 cases.
 

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:
The Action Plan accompanying the Strategy envisages optimization of the number of judges according to the number of cases in courts, in line with European standards by outflow of judges (retirement). Envisaged activities consist of preparing a situation analysis with, a view to aligning with European standards, as well as adopting decisions on the required number of judges per court, according to the number of cases in each court and in pursuance with European criteria.
In 2020, a Strategy for Human Resources in the Court Network was developed. This Strategy defines activities to be undertaken in the period from 2021 to 2026, with a view to strengthening and improving the already established legal, financial, and institutional framework and with a view to efficiently utilizing available human resources.
 

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:

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:

 

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:
The Action Plan accompanying the Strategy envisages the measure of regular updating the judicial database, which is to result in an increase of the number of visitors of the portal. 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. Searching and finding a specific decision is difficult since there is no possibility to apply the search function using key words. Courts do not publish all judgements delivered in a year, and some courts do not publish/post their judgements at all. In 2020, with the help of volunteers, the First Instance Criminal Court anonymized and published/posted 1,814 anonymized judgements on its website.
 

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:

The following types of targeted information are available:
a) online forms for the public and for companies - forms-requests and payment forms for diverse types of documents issued by courts (certificates, confirmations and similar) are posted on the sud.mk portal;
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 courts;
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 are 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) an interactive 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, the information is 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.

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:
In 2020 and in 2021, 18% and 16% of judges, respectively were dissatisfied, while in 2020 and in 2021 75% and 54% of respondents respectively were satisfied with the manner of online publishing of court judgments. The following remarks were given in answer to the question “What does the search functionality lack?”: the design of the portal should be improved, there are no search possibilities, not all court judgements have been posted/published, tools for searches on various grounds are missing – data about the case, number of the case, and finally the search by case number is difficult. In view of the character of the state of emergency and the mandatory security measures, in line with their competences, all courts in the country worked in camera, without hearings. Cases which were not urgent were processed only if conditions for protection of the health of judges, parties and other participants in the proceedings were fulfilled, while respecting the measures for distancing and wearing personal protective equipment. Due to the circumstances in such a situation, it is important to emphasize that in a Decision it delivered, the Judicial Council encouraged the use of electronic communication and delivery between courts and parties, as the most suitable modus operandi in the given circumstances (provided that there are technical conditions to this end), while envisaging the possibility that some of the tasks are performed remotely from the home.
 

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:
There are the following types of systems:
a) Annual reports on the work of courts- The Supreme Court and appellate courts regularly publish such reports. Out of 27 first instance courts, only eleven published annual reports about their work, eleven courts published only annual statistics about cases, and five courts did not publish any reports about their work. This is an improvement compared with the situation in 2019, when only 8 first instance courts published annual reports, seven published only annual statistics about cases, and five first instance courts did not publish any reports about their work, while the rest published only monthly statistics.
b) Outcome and quality indicators- There is a Methodology of Judicial Statistics, but reports of courts and of the Judicial Council 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). The following parameters and indicators are contained in the reports: number of admitted cases, resolved cases, pending cases, backlog cases, and their categorization according to their overall duration, number of delayed hearings, human resource status, IT situation. Other important indicators, such as success rate, period required for dealing with the backlog of cases, the average “age” i.e., duration of resolved or pending cases are missing. Despite the declarative commitment set forth under the Methodology to facilitating generation of comparable information about the quality as well, the impression remains that quality is primarily viewed through the prism of the duration of the entire procedure, as well as through the prism of going beyond the legally prescribed deadlines for the duration of proceedings.
c) IT system for court case management- The ACMIS system has been installed in all courts and this system registers, allocates and monitors the movement of court cases within the court system.
d) IT system generating statistics about the work of courts- There is a software for judicial statistics, which has been installed at the Judicial Council, and the complete functioning of which requires full and correct feeding of the ACMIS system with data. Survey respondents answered that the IT court management system (ACMIS) has or partially has five types of data. However, the difference in the positions of respondents on this question may be attributed to the different level of knowledge/information of court staff about data that the system collects, then to the differences in the practice of staff with respect to the parameters they regularly enter in the system, and to the differences in the quality of entries by various court staff members.
e) Court staff specialized for monitoring and evaluation.
f) Surveys conducted among users of court services and legal professionals.
 

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:
About 43% 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 about 16% of them are dissatisfied, and 18% of them are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
 

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:
is encouraging that even when in accordance with relevant legal provisions courts deliver decisions to exclude the public from court hearings, they do allow the presence of members of professional circles, including monitors of court proceedings. However, in October 2020, there were cases of non-restrictive exclusion of the public and of members of expert circles, on the grounds of a Protocol for protection against COVID-19 in courts, with the reasoning that there is not enough room to ensure proper physical distancing between people. The Coalition All for Fair Trials reacted that the Association of Judges that developed the said Protocol, does not have the mandate to deliver binding documents for all courts in the country, while measures set forth in the Protocol leave ample room for judges to limit and to even completely exclude the public from hearings, in contravention of relevant legal, constitutional and international instruments provisions relating to the right to a fair trial.
 

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:
In 2020, members of the Judicial Council and its administrative staff strengthened the public relations capacities by attending trainings on effective communication with the public, organized under the programme for increasing the transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of the Council, implemented by the Institute for Human Rights. In 2020, there were also other projects supporting the process of strengthening the public relations capacities of the Judicial Council.
 

2019-2020:
The following annual reports were published: 1) 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports of the Judicial Council, which each contain a chapter elaborating upon expenditures of the judiciary, categorized into salaries, remunerations, goods and services, transfers and capital expenditures: 2) Review of expenditures according to the above referred to categories is also contained in the 2019 and 2020 Reports on the Execution of the Judicial Budget, but these Reports also contain review of expenditures according to budget programmes, budget items and sub-items.

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:
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.
 

2019:
The Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice do not have sufficient number of staff to work on analysis and research.
2020:
The published Rulebook on the Systematization of Jobs at the Ministry of Justice (consolidated text) posted on the website of the Ministry of Justice, i.e., the new systematization of jobs valid as of 24 February 2021, envisages the establishment of a unit for organization of justice system bodies and for monitoring the reform of the justice system. This Unit for organization of justice system bodies and for monitoring the reform of the justice system, the mandate of which, inter alia, encompasses collecting statistics and developing analyses and statistical reports, collection, and processing of data about the work of courts and public prosecutors’ offices was regulated under the Rulebook No. 01-5602/1, dated 31 December 2019, and to a certain degree also in the previous Rulebook.
 

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:
Most of the judges, 42% in 2020 and 39% in 2021 and of the lawyers, 64% in 2020 and 35% in 2021, respectively answered that the Government consults them often or sometimes when it comes to initiatives for legislative amendments having a direct impact on the justice system. Different from them, public prosecutors most often replied that they are rarely consulted.
 

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.
2020-2021:
As regards the capacity for efficient budgeting of courts, lawyers, and public prosecutors most often (30% in 2020), i.e., 25.6% in 2021 assessed it with the mark 4 on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is the best mark, while 26%, i.e., 25% of them gave a medium mark of 3 in 2021. 28% of respondents in 2020 and 19% of respondents in 2021 gave the lowest marks (1 and 2).
 

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.
2020-2021:
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% in 2020 and 52% in 2021, 37% in 2020 and 24% in 2021, respectively). Judges most often presented the assessment that the situation was improved.
 

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:
The Action Plan accompanying the Strategy envisages the measure of Establishing a separate unit at the Ministry of Justice with a view to coordinating, monitoring, and aligning all reform activities, which requires amendments to the Rulebook on the Systematization and Organization of Jobs at the Ministry of Justice. The indicator for the successful accomplishment of this goal would be an established and functional, i.e., operating organizational unit at the Ministry of Justice. The Rulebook on Systematization of Jobs at the Ministry of Justice (consolidated text) published on the website of the Ministry of the Justice, i.e., the new systematization of jobs valid as of 24 February 2021 envisages the establishment of a unit for organization of justice system bodies and monitoring the reform of the justice system, while the establishment of such a unit was also envisaged under previous rulebooks on the internal organizational set-up of the Ministry of Justice.
 

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:
The Action Plan accompanying the Strategy envisages the measure of Establishing a body led by the Prime Minister, which based on regular coordination activities, then by monitoring data received from the Ministry of Justice and using indicators set forth under the Action Plan, is to contribute to the Government adopting relevant conclusions on the accomplishment of strategic goals and guidelines. The Council for monitoring the implementation of the 2017-2022 Strategy for Reform of the Judicial Sector was established in 2018. In 2020, due to the situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, then due to the early general elections and the fact that there was a caretaker Government, the first session of the Council was held at the end of December 2020.

2019:
Recommendations were defined relating to six areas.
2020:
Recommendations of the Council for reform of the judicial sector are related to the consistent application of adopted legal solutions, then to overcoming obstacles, which contributed to the delayed implementation of activities set forth under the Strategy and Action Plan, being also related to the adoption of secondary legislation by the Council of Public Prosecutors on the work of public prosecutors.
 

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:

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:

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:
0.29% of the GDP in 2020, which is a reduction compared with the allocation of 0.31% of the GDP in 2019.

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:
Even though there is an independent Judicial Budget Council, the judiciary fails in getting the required level of funding. This can be illustrated by the fact that in 2020 the finally approved budget for the judiciary is only 60% of the requested funds.
 

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:
There is evident dominant share of salaries and remunerations: 81% in 2020, 72% in 2019 and 80% in 2018. Goods and services, have a share of 13% of the total budget, which according to the Judicial Budget Council is insufficient to cover all needs deriving from the regular work of courts. In 2020, there was a drastic reduction of the share of capital expenditures – from 7.3% in 2019 to 3.1% in 2020. The Judicial Budget Council assessed as insufficient the capital expenditures even at their level in 2019. There is also reduction of transfers from 7.8% in 2019 to 3.4% in 2020.
 

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:
In 2020, the finally approved budget for the judiciary was only 60% of the requested funds, which were based on realistic needs of individual entities in the judiciary-budget beneficiaries. In 2019, this indicator was 66%, while in 2018 the ratio of coverage was 64%.
 

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

2019:
89 resolved criminal charges per public prosecutor in 2018.

2020:
122 resolved criminal charges per public prosecutor in 2018.
 

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:
About 52% of the respondents are satisfied (giving the mark of 5 or 4) with the possibility they have to present their evidence before the court, while 20% are dissatisfied, and 25% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
 

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:
About half of surveyed citizens (49%) disagree or completely disagree that judges and public prosecutors respect rights of defendants or of damaged parties. More than half of surveyed citizens (51%) completely or partially agree that rights of defendants were respected.
 

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:
59.8% of surveyed citizens consider that judges treat parties to court proceedings equally (giving the marks of 4 and 5). Citizens’ assessments of court staff are similar. Hence, 62% of surveyed citizens stated that court staff treated parties to proceedings equally, regardless of their income, origin, gender, and religion.
 

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:
72% of surveyed lawyers and public prosecutors consider that women-victims of violence have a fair treatment in the course of court proceedings. 36% of them completely agree, while 36% agree only partially with this statement. 67% of surveyed lawyers did not reply to this question.
 

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:
Surveyed citizens stated that they are almost equally satisfied with the respect for the presumption of innocence by courts, public prosecutors’ offices and by media outlets. They were evaluating institutions using marks on a scale from 1 to 5, under which 1 is completely dissatisfied, while 5 marks completely satisfied. However, citizens are most satisfied with the respect for the presumption of innocence by courts, i.e., 50% of citizens (gave the marks of 4 and 5), slightly smaller number of citizens (42%) consider that media outlets respect the presumption of innocence, while the lowest number of citizens (39%) are satisfied with the manner in which public prosecutors’ offices respect the presumption of innocence principle.

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:
73.2% of surveyed judges stated that other persons interfere in their decision making never or rarely. The same opinion is shared by 47.7% of public prosecutors and 44.4% of lawyers. Judges (9.6%) consider that there is interference in the decisions sometimes, and this opinion is shared by 12.3% of public prosecutors and 21.7% of lawyers. “I do not know” or “I have no answer to this question” was the answer given by 17.2% of judges, 38.5% of public prosecutors and 18% of lawyers. It is interesting that 1.5% of public prosecutors and as much as 15.9% of lawyers consider that frequently there is interference in decisions of judges.
 

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:
Тhe number of planned trainings for judges and public prosecutors focused on strengthening the rights of defence and protection of human rights in criminal proceedings in 2020 was 9, the same as the number of planned trainings in 2019.
 

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:
The number of completed trainings for judges and public prosecutors focused on strengthening the rights of defence and protection of human rights in criminal proceedings in 2020 was 8, the same as the number of completed trainings in 2019. However, these topics are also covered by and elaborated upon under other trainings organized by the AJPP.
 

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.

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:
In the period
from February 2020 to February 2021, inclusive only one child aged 14 to 18 serves the measure of staying at an educational – correctional facility longer than three years.
 

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.
2020-2021:
The answer to the second request for access to information of public character (sent in March 2021) was that a total number of two children aged 18 to 23 serve the measure of staying at an educational – correctional facility longer than three years.
 

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:
According to paragraph 1 of Article 39 of the Law on Free Legal Aid“ provisions of this Law on rules governing the procedure for approval of secondary legal aid shall not apply to providing legal aid to children, in accordance with provisions of the Law on Justice for Children”. Paragraph 2 of this same Article stipulates that “when legal aid is provided to children in procedures at Social Work Centres and at the Ministry of the Interior, in line with the provisions of the Law on Justice for Children, the Ministry of Justice shall be obliged to only make the payment upon submission of the cost schedule by the lawyer.” Hence, in line with these provisions, the Ministry of Justice received 44 cost schedules for 2020. A total number of 13 children were represented in proceedings. One child was represented in 31 proceedings, one child was represented in two proceedings and 11 children were represented in one procedure each.
 

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:
In 2020, a total number of 449 persons attended trainings focused on victims, including children - victims, of whom 184 judges, 196 public prosecutors, 33 administrative staff, 7 lawyers, 4 representatives of the Ministry of the Interior, 22 attendants of initial training and three other participants.
 

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:
In 2020, there were 17 trainings focused on victims, including children – victims.

 
 

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:
The Inspection Council has changed the manner of keeping statistics. Therefore, the value of the indicator cannot be calculated.
 

2019:
The settlement procedure is more often applied (64%) compared with institution of misdemeanour charges.
2020:
The Inspection Council has changed the manner of keeping statistics. Therefore, the value of the indicator cannot be calculated.
 

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:
The majority of surveyed citizens completely or partially agree that judges and court staff treat people equally, regardless of their income, national or social origin, gender, or religion. In 2019, 63% of surveyed citizens held such an opinion about judges, and 64% about the court staff. In 2020, 46.5% held such an opinion about judges and 48% about the court staff.
 

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:
58% of citizens surveyed in 2020 and 41% of citizens surveyed in 2021 were relatively satisfied with the possibility given to them to present evidence, while 15% were dissatisfied and 25% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
 

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.
2020-2021:
53% of citizens surveyed in 2020, who participated in civil law court proceedings, were relatively satisfied with the manner in which the judge heard the parties to the proceedings, while according to the results of the 2021 Survey the satisfaction level was slightly increased with 56% of surveyed citizens stating that they were relatively satisfied, while 4% stated that they were dissatisfied, and 25% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, according to the results of the 2021 Survey.
 

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%).
2020-2021:
45% of citizens surveyed in 2020, i.e., 40% of citizens surveyed in 2021, involved in civil law court proceedings were dissatisfied with the duration of proceedings. The main reason for their dissatisfaction with the duration of proceedings stated by dissatisfied citizens are the lengthy periods between scheduled hearings and frequent delays of hearings- according to the results of both Surveys.
 

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: