In view of the increased media interest, the Constitutional Court informs that at its 24th session, held on 19 November 2025, it deliberated on case no. U.br.13/2025.
Acting in this case, and upon the proposal of the Judge-Rapporteur, Dobrila Kacaraska, the Court decided, of its own initiative, to initiate proceedings for the review of Article 2 of the Law Amending and Supplementing the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, published on 29 July 2025 in the Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia No. 154/25.
The contested provision concerns an increase in pensions (commonly referred to in the public as a “linear increase”). Namely, under the challenged Article 2, the right to regular monthly adjustment of pensions, calculated on the basis of wage growth and increases in the cost of living, is replaced by a linear distribution of the total amount of funds equally among all pension beneficiaries, irrespective of the amount of the pension acquired and realised, the length of service, and the contributions paid.
The Court took into account the fact that the adjustment of pensions is a right of the insured person which guarantees social security within the framework of the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, thereby giving effect to the constitutional guarantee of social security for citizens.
At this stage of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court expressed doubts as to whether the challenged Article 2 violates the constitutional principles of social justice, equality of citizens, as well as legal certainty and legitimate expectations as legal principles. In particular, the question was raised as to whether the contested provision results in discrimination based on the amount of the pension and inequality among pension beneficiaries, namely whether pensioners with longer years of service, higher contributions to the pension system and a higher assessment base receive a smaller pension increase compared to pensioners with lower pensions.
A pension constitutes an acquired individual property right, and pursuant to Article 30 of the Constitution, the right to property is guaranteed and may not be restricted or deprived. Consequently, the Constitutional Court has legitimately raised the question as to whether the challenged provision restricts the right to property of pensioners with higher pensions.
In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has stated that, for the purposes of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, a difference in treatment is discriminatory if it has “no objective and reasonable justification”, that is, if it does not pursue a “legitimate aim” or if there is no “reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised”.
By initiating proceedings for the review of the constitutionality of the challenged provision, the Constitutional Court will examine whether the legislative solution is justified and sufficiently balanced.
In the course of these proceedings, the Court rejected the initiative submitted by Tito Belicanec, Jadranka Mršić and Suzana Moskovska, as the challenged provisions (Article 3 and Article 18 of the Law Amending and Supplementing the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, published on 18 September 2024) are of a temporary nature and are no longer part of the legal system.