Procedure

The Rules of Procedure defines the procedure before the Constitutional Court. The motif of the maker of the Constitution behind this solution is to secure the autonomy and complete independence of the Constitutional Court in reference to the Assembly and other state organs.

In relation to competence, the Rules of Procedure anticipates different procedures before the Constitutional Court.

Control over constitutionality and legality

Initiative for commencing a procedure assessing constitutionality of a law or constitutionality and legality of another regulation as well as constitutionality of programs and statutes of political parties and association of citizens may be submitted before the Court by anyone. Submission of initiatives is not connected with existence of legal interest by the person who submits it. The initiative should be appropriately composed in terms of form and content, i.e. the act being challenged, the reasons for challenging the act, constitutional or legal provisions that are violated with the challenged act, as well as the initiator of it, should be clearly stated.

The Court debates in substance and decides on initiatives in case the challenged act is a general one and if it is still in force. If there are grounds for doubts, the Court first commences a procedure and in the second phase cassates (annuls or repeals) it.

The procedure for evaluation of the constitutionality and legality may be commenced by the Court on its own initiative, either within the framework of the existing initiative, or originally launched by itself.

Protection of freedoms and rights of the individualand citizen

The procedure for protection of the freedoms and rights of the individual and citizen which refer to the freedom of conviction, conscience, thought and public expression, political association and activities and prohibition discrimination among citizens on grounds of sex, racial, religious, national, social and political affiliation, is commenced upon a request (constitutional complaint) by any person who considers that some of the fore mentioned freedoms and rights have been violated with a final or effective act or action. Then, the request must be appropriately composed, stating the act or action violating the freedoms and rights; facts and proofs of it; reasons for asking protection and other relevant data. Besides the fact that this type of competence is with a limited scope, it has other two major characteristics: the first being that not only administrative but also judicial decisions and acts of the bearers of public authority may be challenged, and the second, that submitting a request does not impose prior exhaustion of all legal remedies against a final or effective act.

The procedure is considered as commenced upon submission of the request and the Court is left only to reach the decision on merits. By rule, the Constitutional Court decides on protection of freedoms and rights on bases of a public hearing and the ombudsman is compulsorily invited on it. The Court in this procedure may annul individual acts, ban an activity that violated them or deny the request. This procedure is based on the principles of priority and urgency.

Deciding on conflict of competence

The procedure for deciding on conflict of competence among bearers of the legislative, executive and judicial power and conflict of competence between them and units of the local self-government is commenced upon proposal by any of the organs involved in the conflict (positive or negative conflict), as well as upon bases of a proposal by any subject whose rights are violated as a result of the conflict. The proposal should be appropriately composed, that is, the conflict matter, the organs involved and the final or effective acts with which both organs accepted or refused competence to decide on a same case, should be clearly stated.

The procedure is considered as commenced upon submission of the request and the Court is left only to reach the decision on merits. With the decision the Constitutional Court determines the organ competent for settling the case.

Deciding on accountability of the President of the Republic of Macedonia

The procedure for determining the accountability of the President of the Republic of Macedonia is commenced upon proposal of the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia, which should be approved by two-thirds of the total number of representatives. The proposal should be appropriately composed in terms of form and content and contain description and proofs of the violation of the Constitution and law, which holds the President of the Republic of Macedonia accountable for. A commission of three judges from the Constitutional Court acts upon proposal and examines the circumstances, facts and proofs relevant for making a Court’s decision. The President of the Republic takes part in the proceedings before the Court and he/she may give his/her opinion on the issues in the proposal. The procedure is considered as commenced upon the submission of the request itself and the Court directly decides on the accountability of the President of the Republic.

Other procedures

A procedure for determining the conditions for termination of the office President of the Republic of Macedonia caused by death, resignation, permanent inability to perform his/her duties or termination of the mandate by force of the Constitution is commenced and carried out by the Court by official duty.

A procedure for depriving the President of the Republic of immunity is commenced upon proposal by a competent organ, before which the request for initiating penal proceedings has been submitted.

Procedure for determining permanent inability of a judge in the Constitutional Court to perform his/her duties and procedure for depriving his/her of immunity is commenced and carried out on a session by the Constitutional Court.

Each of the three mentioned procedures is carried out in a way that the Court determines a commission of three judges who examine the circumstances, facts and proofs relevant for making a Court decision.