The President of the Constitutional Court, Darco Kostadinovski LLD, delivered the opening address at a Conference dedicated to the topic “Enforcement of the Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of North Macedonia”, held with the support of the OSCE Mission to Skopje on 30 April 2026.
Kostadinovski addressed both the practice to date in our country and the normative framework in this area.
The full speech by President Kostadinovski follows:
Ambassador of the OSCE Mission to Skopje, Mr Wahl,
Dear colleagues, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
Allow me, at the outset, to express my gratitude to the OSCE Mission to Skopje for organising this event, as well as for its continued contribution to strengthening the rule of law and constitutional culture in our society. At times, it may seem that this expression of gratitude has become almost a standard introduction, but the reason is simple – their support is continuous and unwavering, fully in keeping with the OSCE’s mission to strengthen institutions and the rule of law.
Distinguished guests,
The subject we are addressing today is not merely a legal issue, but a matter of fundamental importance to the functioning of the constitutional order.
The enforcement of Constitutional Court decisions represents the final, yet crucial, stage of the constitutional judicial function. Without its effective implementation, the entire system for the protection of constitutionality and legality remains without practical effect. Therefore, the Constitution clearly provides that the Court’s decisions are final and enforceable, while under the Act of the Court they acquire an additional characteristic – general binding force. It is precisely these characteristics that constitute their force: they admit neither delay nor challenge, and their effect is erga omnes, binding all legal entities.
The decisions of the Constitutional Court are not merely the legal outcome of a particular dispute. Through their interpretation of constitutional values and norms, they fundamentally shape the constitutional order. In this respect, compliance with the decisions of the Constitutional Court is, at the same time, compliance with the Constitution. Their legal nature is clear: they remove unconstitutional norms from the legal order and establish constitutional balance. Upon their publication, the obligation to enforce them promptly and fully arises. Any delay or selective application calls into question legal certainty and confidence in the institutions.
Distinguished guests,
The Constitution expressly provides that “the decision of the Constitutional Court is final and enforceable”, while under the Rules of Procedure previously in force, “the enforcement of a decision of the Constitutional Court shall, where necessary, be ensured by the Government”. It is evident that the drafters of the Rules of Procedure proceeded from the premise that Constitutional Court decisions would be enforced ex constitutione, by virtue of the Constitution, hence the wording that “where necessary” (i.e. only by way of exception) the Government would ensure their enforcement.
The new Act of the Court goes a step further by providing that decisions are legally binding on all entities (thereby requiring all state bodies and public authorities to respect, implement and enforce the decisions of the Constitutional Court within the scope of their competence); that anyone with a legal interest may request the enforcement of Constitutional Court decisions; that the Court monitors the enforcement of its decisions ex officio; that the Court may request public authorities to ensure the enforcement of a decision; and that, if this does not occur, the Court shall adopt a separate resolution establishing that its decision has not been enforced. All of this constitutes a significant and substantive innovation.
Consequently, although the normative framework provides mechanisms for monitoring and ensuring enforcement, practice shows that the question is not merely whether such mechanisms exist, but whether they are sufficiently effective. The key element lies not only in formal mechanisms, but also in the degree of institutional responsibility and legal culture. Problems most often arise not from an absence of rules, but from their inconsistent application. In practice, there are instances of decisions being ignored or circumvented – either through the re-adoption of similar resolutions or through failure to act. Such practices are unacceptable because they directly undermine the rule of law.
An additional challenge concerns the attitude of the other branches of government towards Constitutional Court decisions. Rather than being regarded as a corrective mechanism and a guarantor of constitutionality, they are sometimes perceived as a constraint. This is precisely where one of the paradoxes of the constitutional system emerges – an institution that has the final say in the protection of the Constitution often has limited mechanisms at its disposal to ensure the enforcement of its own decisions.
Experience shows that the strongest mechanism is not a sanction, but a well-developed constitutional culture. In systems where there is a high level of respect for the law, constitutional court decisions are enforced without resistance. Where such a culture is insufficiently developed, not even the most precise rules can guarantee full effectiveness.
Therefore, the issue of enforcement is not merely technical or procedural. It is a question of responsibility, institutional integrity and the maturity of the legal system. Enforcement means not only formal compliance, but also the substantive acceptance of the Court’s legal positions in future proceedings.
Distinguished guests,
The enforcement of Constitutional Court decisions is a test of the rule of law. Where decisions are respected, the Constitution lives. Where they are ignored, the legal order is called into question. The rule of law is not measured by the decisions that are adopted, but by their enforcement. It is at that point that the law acquires real force and constitutional protection acquires genuine meaning.
Therefore, responsibility lies not only with institutions, but also with legal scholarship, the professional and political community, and society as a whole – to build and nurture a constitutional culture based on loyalty to the Constitution. Only in this way will the decisions of the Constitutional Court be what they ought to be – a guarantee of justice, freedoms and legal certainty.
Thank you for your attention.