Constitutional Court of the Republic of North Macedonia
U.No.186/2024
Skopje, 20 May 2025
Acting on the basis of Article 110 of the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia and Article 72 Indent 1 of the Act of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of North Macedonia (“Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia” No.115/2024), at its session held on 20 May 2025, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of North Macedonia, composed of Darko Kostadinovski LLD, President of the Court, and judges Naser Ajdari, Tatjana Vasikj-Bozadjieva LLM, Jadranka Dabovikj-Anastasovska LLD, Osman Kadriu LLD, Dobrila Kacarska, Ana Pavlovska-Daneva LLD, and Fatmir Skender LLM, adopted the following:
D E C I S I O N
- Articles 17 and 18 of the Law Amending the Electoral Code (“Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia” No.58/2024 of 11 March 2024) are hereby REPEALED.
- This Decision shall be published in the “Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia”.
Reasoning
I
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of North Macedonia, acting upon an initiative submitted by Liljana Popovska, Gjorgji Tanushev, Kostadin Ristomanov, Stojancho Velkov, Nevena Georgievska, Tatjana Stojanovska, Dejan Dimitrovski, Dragana Velkovska, Gorjan Jovanovski, Jana Belcheva-Andreevska and Jane Dimeski, represented by the Law Office Petrusheva from Skopje, by its Resolution U.No.186/2024 of 26 February 2025, initiated proceedings for the review of the constitutionality of the provisions of the Electoral Code indicated in Item 1 of the operative part of this Decision, since the question was legitimately raised as to their compliance with the provisions of Article 8 Paragraph 1 Indents 3 and 5, Article 22 and Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia.
II
At the session, the Court established that pursuant to Article 17 of the Law Amending the Electoral Code (“Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia” No.58/2024), in Article 61 Paragraph 1, the number “1000” is replaced with “1%”.
According to Article 18 of the Law Amending the Electoral Code, Article 62 is amended to read as follows: When the submitter of a list of candidates for members of a Council, or a list of candidates for Mayor, is a group of voters, it is required to collect at least 1% of the signatures of the registered voters entered in the excerpt from the Voters’ List for the municipality, i.e., for the City of Skopje.
III
Constitutional Provisions
According to Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, the Republic of North Macedonia is a sovereign, independent, democratic and social state, and pursuant to Article 2 Paragraph 2, the citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia exercise power through democratically elected representatives, by referendum and other forms of direct expression.
In accordance with Article 8 Paragraph 1 Indents 1, 3 and 5 of the Constitution, the fundamental values of the constitutional order of the Republic of North Macedonia are the basic freedoms and rights of the individual and citizen recognised in international law and established by the Constitution, the rule of law, as well as political pluralism and free, direct and democratic elections.
The equality of citizens is guaranteed by Article 9 of the Constitution, which provides that the citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia are equal in their freedoms and rights regardless of sex, race, colour of skin, national and social origin, political and religious conviction, property and social status. Citizens are equal before the Constitution and the laws.
Article 20 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of association for the realisation and protection of the political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and convictions of citizens.
According to Article 22 of the Constitution, every citizen who has attained the age of 18 years acquires the right to vote. The right to vote is equal, universal and direct, and is exercised in free elections by secret ballot.
Pursuant to Article 23, every citizen has the right to participate in the performance of public functions.
According to Article 51 of the Constitution, in the Republic of Macedonia the laws must be in conformity with the Constitution, and all other regulations with the Constitution and the laws. Everyone is obliged to respect the Constitution and the laws.
Article 54 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution provides that the freedoms and rights of the individual and citizen may be restricted only in cases determined by the Constitution. Freedoms and rights of the individual and citizen may be restricted during a state of war or emergency in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution (Paragraph 2).
According to Article 61 of the Constitution, the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia is the representative body of the citizens and the holder of legislative power in the Republic. Article 62 Paragraph 2 of the Constitution prescribes that Members of Parliament shall be elected at general, direct and free elections by secret ballot, while Paragraph 5 of the same Article provides that the manner and conditions for the election of Members of Parliament shall be regulated by law adopted by a majority of votes of the total number of Members of Parliament.
Article 114 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to local self-government. According to Amendment XVII Items 1 and 2, in the units of local self-government, and in the City of Skopje, citizens directly and through representatives participate in decision-making on issues of local importance, or of importance for the City of Skopje, particularly in the areas of public services, urban and rural planning, environmental protection, local economic development, local financing, communal activities, culture, sport, social welfare and child protection, education, health care, and other areas determined by law.
International Standards
The right of a citizen to stand for election (the passive suffrage right), whether as an individual, an independent candidate or as a candidate of a political party, is a universally recognised right guaranteed by all international human rights instruments.
At the universal level, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that: “Every citizen has the right and the opportunity, without any discrimination and unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To be admitted, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.”
In interpreting the scope of the rights enshrined in this Article of the Covenant, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in General Comment No. 25, pointed out that Article 25 of the Covenant recognises and protects the right of every citizen to participate in the conduct of public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected, and the right to have access to public service. Regardless of the constitutional system or system of government, the Covenant requires States Parties to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that citizens have an effective opportunity to enjoy the rights protected by this Article. Article 25 lies at the core of democratic governance based on the consent of the people and in conformity with the principles of the Covenant. With regard to independent candidates, the General Comment emphasises that “persons who are otherwise eligible to stand for election should not be excluded… on the grounds of their political affiliation” and that “the right of persons to stand for election should not be unreasonably limited by requiring candidates to be members of parties or of specific parties. If nomination requires a minimum number of supporters, this requirement should be reasonable and not act as a barrier to candidature. Political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”
At the European level, similar guarantees are provided by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, although it applies only to elections for the legislature, and not to local elections. Under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, the Contracting States undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
For local elections in particular, this right is guaranteed by Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which formulates it as the right to participate in the affairs of local authorities.
A basic rule prevailing throughout all international legal instruments concerning the passive suffrage right is that the legal framework must ensure competition among all political parties and candidates in elections, on the basis of the principle of equal treatment before the law.
Paragraphs 7.5 and 7.6 of the OSCE Copenhagen Document (1990) establish standards in this respect. Paragraph 7.5 requires that citizens be allowed “to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organisations, without discrimination.”
In the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters (adopted by the Venice Commission in 2002), Chapter 1.3 establishes that the requirement to collect a certain number of signatures in order for a person to be eligible to stand for election is, in principle, consistent with the principle of universal suffrage. In practice, it appears that only the most marginal parties encounter difficulties in collecting the required number of signatures, provided that the rules on collecting signatures are not used with the aim of preventing candidates from standing. To prevent such manipulation, it is desirable for the law to set the threshold at no more than 1% of signatures as a condition for candidacy. Verification of signatures must comply with clear rules, particularly as regards deadlines, and must be applied to all signatures, not only to a portion of them. Once the verification has established that the required number of signatures has been collected, the remaining signatures need not be verified. In all cases, candidacies should be confirmed at the beginning of the campaign, since delayed confirmation would place parties and candidates at a disadvantage in the campaign.
Practice of the European Court of Human Rights
“According to the Preamble to the European Convention, fundamental human rights and freedoms are best realised in an ‘effective political democracy’. Since it establishes the specific principle of democracy, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is of prime importance for the Convention system” (Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 1987, § 47).
According to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, requirements relating to the necessary number of signatures for the submission of a list of candidates do not constitute an interference with the right to the free expression of the opinion of the people in the election of the legislature, as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention – the right to free elections, since such requirements serve to prevent excessive fragmentation of the political landscape (Asensio Serqueda v. Spain, Commission decision, 1994; Federación nacionalista Canaria v. Spain (dec.), 2001; Brito Da Silva Guerra and Sousa Magno v. Portugal (dec.), 2008; Mihaela Mihai Neagu v. Romania (dec.), 1994, § 31). However, such measures must pursue a legitimate aim, such as the reasonable selection of candidates to ensure their representative character and to exclude unsuitable candidacies, and they must also be proportionate to that aim. Thus, with respect to the requirement of 100,000 signatures, representing 0.55% of the registered voters on the electoral roll, the Court held that this was compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (case of Mihaela Mihai Neagu v. Romania (dec.), 1994). Likewise, the requirement that signatures be accompanied by certificates proving that the signatory is registered on the electoral roll serves the legitimate aim of ensuring that the signatory has the right to vote and that he/she supports only one candidacy. The Court therefore held that it was not disproportionate to reject a candidacy which failed to fulfil the prescribed formalities.
Nevertheless, the Court has emphasised that the requirement of a minimum number of signatures and their verification must comply with the rule of law and safeguard the integrity of elections (Tahirov v. Azerbaijan, 2015).
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Electoral Code
The manner, conditions and procedure for the election of the President of the Republic of North Macedonia, the election of Members of Parliament in the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia, members of the municipal councils and the Council of the City of Skopje, the election of Mayors, the manner and procedure of registering the right to vote, as well as other matters relating to elections, are regulated by the Electoral Code (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” Nos. 40/2006, 127/2006, 136/2008, 155/2008, 163/2008, 44/2011, 51/2011, 142/2012, 31/2013, 34/2013, 14/2014, 30/2014, 31/2015, 196/2015, 35/2016, 97/2016, 99/2016, 136/2016, 142/2016, 57/2017, 67/2017, 125/2017, 35/2018, 99/2018, 140/2018, 208/2018 and 27/2019; and “Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia” Nos. 98/2019, 146/2019, 42/2020, 74/2021, 215/2021, 58/2024 and 76/2024).
In the Glossary of the Electoral Code (Article 2) the following definitions are provided:
5. “Submitter of a list” means registered political parties or their coalitions registered with the State Election Commission, a group of voters, and Members of Parliament;
6. “Candidate” means a citizen of the Republic of Macedonia determined by the competent election commission in accordance with this Code, for whom votes shall be cast at elections;
7. “Independent candidate” is a candidate for election as President of the Republic, Member of Parliament, Mayor or member of a council who is supported by a “group of voters”;
8. “Political party” is a political party registered in accordance with law.
In the subsequent provisions of the Electoral Code regulating the procedure for candidacies, Article 57 Paragraph 1 provides that the nomination of candidates for the election of the President of the Republic, candidates for Members of Parliament, candidates for members of councils and candidates for Mayor shall be effected by the submission of a list of candidates for the President of the Republic, a list of candidates for Members of Parliament, a list of candidates for members of councils, or a list of candidates for Mayor. Pursuant to Paragraph 2, a candidate for President of the Republic, Member of Parliament, member of a council or Mayor may be nominated in only one list.
According to Article 60 of the Electoral Code, the right to submit a list of candidates for Members of Parliament, a list of candidates for members of councils, or a list of candidates for Mayor belongs to registered political parties independently, coalitions, as well as groups of voters (hereinafter: submitter of a list). Only registered political parties may participate in a coalition contesting the elections. (7) The list of candidates shall be signed personally by an authorised representative of the submitter of the list. (8) The title of the list shall be designated according to the name of the submitter of the list. (9) If the submitter of a list of candidates is a group of voters, the title of the list shall be designated as “group of voters” together with the name and surname of the candidate.
By the contested Article 17, Article 61 Paragraph 1 of the Code was amended, so that it now provides the following: when the submitter of a list of candidates for Members of Parliament is a group of voters, it is required to collect at least 1% of the signatures of the registered voters in the extract of the Voters’ List of the electoral unit. (2) When the submitter of a list of candidates for Members of Parliament is a group of voters from the electoral units for voting abroad, it is required to collect at least 1,000 signatures of registered voters from the extract of the Voters’ List for those electoral units before the officials of the DCR, i.e. the consular offices, on a form prescribed by the State Election Commission.
By the contested Article 18 of the Law Amending the Electoral Code, Article 62 Paragraph 1 of the Code was amended, so that it is now provided that when the submitter of a list of candidates for members of a council, or a list of candidates for mayor, is a group of voters, it is required to collect at least 1% of the signatures of the registered voters in the extract of the Voters’ List for the municipality, or for the City of Skopje.
The procedure for collecting signatures for the nomination of a candidate is regulated by Article 63 of the Electoral Code. In brief, this Article provides that signatures shall be collected before officials of the State Election Commission and before a competent notary, within a time-limit commencing on the tenth day from the day of calling the elections and lasting 15 days; a voter may give his or her signature for several lists of candidates for President of the Republic, for Members of Parliament, for members of a council and for a candidate for mayor; voters who submit the list must possess the right to vote and permanent residence in the territory of the electoral unit, municipality, or the City of Skopje.
The procedure for submitting the list is prescribed by Article 65 of the Electoral Code, which provides that the list of candidate or candidates shall be submitted on a form prescribed by the State Election Commission. (2) When the submitter of a list of candidate or candidates is a political party, a certificate of registration from the competent court must be enclosed. (3) When the submitter of a list of candidate or candidates is a coalition, the agreement referred to in Article 60 Paragraph (5) of this Code must be enclosed. (4) When the submitter of a list of candidate or candidates is a group of voters, the required number of signatures established in Article 61, i.e. Article 62 of this Code must also be submitted. (5) For each candidacy a written consent (declaration) of the candidate, which is irrevocable, is required. (6) The order of candidates in the list of candidates shall be determined by the submitter of the list, in accordance with Article 64 of this Code.
Law on Political Parties
The manner, conditions and procedure for the establishment, registration and termination of political parties are regulated by the Law on Political Parties (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” No. 76/2004, No. 5/2007, No. 8/2007, No. 5/2008, No. 23/2013, and “Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia” No. 236/2022).
The Law, in Article 2, defines a political party as a voluntary organisation of citizens, established for the purpose of achieving and protecting political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and beliefs, and for the purpose of participating in the process of political decision-making through participation in power. Political parties realise their aims through the democratic formation and expression of political will by participation in elections, as well as in other democratic ways.
Article 5 of the Law prohibits any form of discrimination on the basis of membership or non-membership in a political party.
According to Article 6 of the Law, political parties are equal before the Constitution and the law, and they are guaranteed freedom and independence in their activities and in determining their internal structure, aims, and the choice of democratic forms and methods of operation.
Article 9 of the Law establishes that political parties are non-profit organisations, and that they acquire and dispose of the funds for their activities in a manner prescribed by law.
Concerning the establishment of a political party, Article 11 of the Law provides that a political party may be established by at least 1,000 citizens of the Republic of Macedonia who possess the right to vote and who have given their signature for the establishment of only one political party. A member of a political party may be any adult and legal capable citizen of the Republic of Macedonia, who signs a declaration of voluntary membership in the political party. The political party is obliged, before the expiry of each four-year period from the date of registration, to submit to the basic court referred to in Article 17 Paragraph 2 of this Law, individually given signatures certified before a notary, in the number required for the establishment of a political party.
The Law on Political Parties regulates in detail the collection of signatures for the establishment of a political party, as well as for proving the minimum number of members of an already established political party, whereby it is stipulated that the signatures shall be given in the form of a declaration before a notary.
Pursuant to Article 17 of the Law, political parties are entered in the Unified Registry of Political Parties, as well as in the court registry of the basic court according to the seat of the political party. The Law on Political Parties also regulates in detail the procedure for registration of the political party by the competent court, the basic acts of the political party and their content (decision on establishment, statute and programme), as well as the name and emblem of the political party.
Article 26 of the Law provides that a political party has the capacity of a legal entity, and that a political party commences its operation and acquires the status of legal entity on the day of its entry into the Court Registry. It is obliged, within 15 days from the date of entry into the Court Register, to open a checking account.
Draft Law with Explanatory Notes
From the Draft Law and its Explanatory Notes it was established that the contested Draft Law amending the Electoral Code was not proposed by the Government, but rather by three Members of Parliament, representatives of the largest political parties VMRO-DPMNE, SDSM and DUI, and that it was adopted under a shortened procedure.
The Draft Law states that the proposed legislative amendments implement the recommendations of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission, relating to the procedure on complaints and appeals for the protection of the right to vote, election observation, voter registration, the electoral campaign and its financing, media coverage in the electoral process, all with the aim of improving the conduct of elections in the country and aligning them with international standards and obligations. The transitional provision regulates the right of voters to cast their vote with an identity card or travel document which has expired within a period of nine months prior to election day.
The reasons provided for the adoption of the Law make no reference whatsoever to the two contested provisions in Articles 17 and 18, nor is any justification given in relation to them; or more precisely, the justification provided is entirely inadequate and incorrect. Namely, in the part of the Draft Law entitled “Explanation of the Content of the Provisions of the Draft Law” it is stated that Article 17 of the Draft regulates, in Article 61 of the Electoral Code, the manner of collecting signatures when nominating candidates for Members of Parliament, and that Article 18 of the Draft Law regulates, in Article 62, the manner of collecting signatures when nominating a list of candidates for members of a municipal council. However, the contested provisions do not regulate the manner of collecting signatures when nominating candidates at all, but rather determine the number of signatures required in cases where the submitter of a list of candidates for Members of Parliament, or for members of a municipal council, is a group of voters. This, in practice, constitutes a condition for the exercise of the passive voting right of individuals standing as independent candidates supported by a group of voters, that is, persons who are not members of a political party.
In a preliminary procedure it was established that the contested amendments to the Electoral Code were adopted under a shortened and non-transparent procedure, without a broader public debate regarding the specifically contested provisions relating to the number of signatures required for the nomination of independent candidates.
The Positions of the Court
In respect of Article 9 of the Constitution
From the aforementioned constitutional provisions it follows that the Republic of North Macedonia is a sovereign, democratic state founded on the principles of respect for fundamental freedoms and rights of the humans and citizens, the rule of law, political pluralism and free, direct and democratic elections, in which citizens exercise power directly or through representatives elected by equal, general and direct suffrage at free elections by secret ballot. Political pluralism, as a fundamental value of the constitutional order, constitutes the basis of democratic society and is expressed primarily through the multi-party system, in which political parties, as representatives of differing political options, compete for power in periodic elections at national and local level. However, political pluralism is not exhausted solely through the multi-party system, but extends beyond it, and encompasses the direct participation of citizens in power, a plurality of political views and options, which are not necessarily articulated solely and exclusively through political parties, but also through the political activity and engagement of citizens as individuals, not organised in political parties, who stand as candidates supported by groups of citizens or by associations of citizens.
Independent candidates, therefore, are individuals whose nomination does not derive from political parties, but who are not members of any political party and who are not included on the electoral lists of any political party. As noted in international documents, particularly the OSCE Copenhagen Document, states must respect the right of citizens to stand for political or public office either individually or as representatives of political parties, without any form of discrimination, thereby underlining the principle of non-discrimination in the right to stand for election between independent candidates and candidates who are members of political parties.
It is precisely this relationship, that is, the parallel between independent candidates and political parties as entities participating in elections, which constitutes one of the essential issues raised by this initiative, since the core contention of the applicants is that by the contested amendments, which raised the threshold for the submission of independent citizen lists at elections to 1% of the electorate, independent candidates are unconstitutionally and discriminatorily subjected to unequal conditions in comparison with political parties, in whose favour these legislative amendments were adopted. Accordingly, the analysis before the Court addressed the question of whether, in the context of standing for election (at national and local level), political parties and independent candidates are in an equal legal position, whether they are comparable, and whether they should enjoy equal rights and obligations, particularly regarding the requirement to collect signatures when nominating candidates for Members of Parliament or members of a municipal council.
From the aforementioned provisions of the Electoral Code it follows that both political parties and groups of voters are submitters of lists of candidates for elections, whereby political parties are authorised to propose lists of candidates independently or in coalition with another political party, while groups of voters may propose candidates on the basis of a certain number of signatures collected in the manner prescribed by the Law. From this, it may be concluded that these are distinct entities – on the one hand, political parties as legal persons established under the conditions and procedure determined by the Law on Political Parties, on the basis of signatures gathered from at least 1,000 voters. Political parties are subject to a registration procedure in which the competent court verifies not only the number and validity of the collected signatures, but also their name and symbols, as well as the content of the founding legal acts of the political party (the statute and the programme), with a view to ensuring that they will conduct their activities in accordance with the law and for purposes not contrary to constitutional values and principles. Furthermore, political parties are registered in the Registry maintained by the competent court and in the Unified Registry of Political Parties, and they acquire the status of a legal person. By virtue of their legal personality, they are authorised entities in the electoral process which, by force of law, appear as authorised nominators of lists of candidates for all elections in the country. Accordingly, a political party does not represent a mere gathering of citizens-voters who have ad hoc united for the purpose of giving one-time support to a particular candidate in elections, but rather an organised entity with the status of a legal person, with an internal organisation and structure, organs and acts, and with a relatively stable membership of at least 1,000 voters, established for the purpose of permanent participation in political processes and elections in order to gain power and to exercise and protect the political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and convictions of its members.
Citizens, however, as a group of voters, likewise appear as entities entitled to submit a list in support of an independent candidate/candidates, such support being given and demonstrated through the submission of a certain number of voter signatures collected in the manner prescribed by the Electoral Code. Unlike a political party, a group of voters does not possess legal personality, but constitutes an association of individuals gathered around a common independent, non-party candidate, whose serious intention to enter the electoral race is substantiated by the collection of a prescribed number of signatures. Thus, the collection of a specific number of signatures of voters in the manner prescribed by the Law represents a condition for the candidacy of independent candidates, since the candidacy of such candidates without the required signatures would be legally invalid and would not be accepted by the State Election Commission. Only once the necessary number of signatures has been collected in the manner prescribed by the Electoral Code does the group of voters become an authorised submitter of a list of candidates, in contrast to political parties, which acquire this status by force of law. Hence, the Court considers unfounded the allegations set forth in the initiative which equate political parties with groups of voters by claiming that both constitute groups of citizens, for this places a sign of equality between electoral entities which are not in the same position and denies the legal personality of the political party. It is indeed correct that a political party is founded by a group of citizens with identical or similar political views, for the purpose of political action and electoral participation; however, once the political party has been registered and has acquired legal personality, it is the political party itself, as a legal person, that becomes the authorised nominator of a list of candidates for electoral participation, and not its individual members.
It follows from the above that political parties and groups of voters are distinct legal entities within the electoral process; they are not in an equal legal position, and therefore, no discrimination can be said to exist in the requirement that independent candidates must collect a certain number of signatures in order to stand for election, a requirement not applicable to political parties, since discrimination denotes unequal treatment of those in equal positions, which in the present case is not at issue. For these reasons, the Court established that the allegations contained in the initiative concerning a violation of the principle of equality under Article 9 of the Constitution are unfounded.
In respect of Article 8 Paragraph 1 Indents 3 and 5, and Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution
From the content of the contested provisions it follows that they amend the number of signatures required for the submission of a list of candidates for Members of Parliament, increasing the requirement from 1,000 signatures to 1% of registered voters. For the nomination of candidates for members of municipal councils and for mayors in local elections, the minimum number of signatures is determined to at least 1% of registered voters in the municipality or in the City of Skopje, instead of the previously applicable solution which set the number of signatures within a range of 100 to 350, depending on the number of registered voters in the municipality.
In analysing the newly established requirement of 1%, the Court was faced with the question of whether this requirement in fact entails an increase in the number of signatures necessary for the nomination of independent candidates by citizens, that is, by groups of voters. In order to determine this and to assess the effect of the amendment on the required number of signatures for the nomination of independent candidates, data were requested in the preliminary procedure from the State Election Commission. The data obtained demonstrate the following:
Table 1. Data on the number of registered voters per electoral units and on the number of signatures required for the nomination of independent candidates for Members of Parliament under the previous solution and under the new, contested solution of 1% of registered voters
| Electoral Unit | Number of registered voters | Number of signatures (old solution) | Number of signatures (new solution – 1% of registered voters) |
| 1 | 313183 | 1000 | 3132 |
| 2 | 321087 | 1000 | 3211 |
| 3 | 275034 | 1000 | 2750 |
| 4 | 278721 | 1000 | 2787 |
| 5 | 310216 | 1000 | 3102 |
| 6 | 317109 | 1000 | 3171 |
From the data submitted by the State Election Commission, it follows that under the new, contested legislative solution, for the nomination of candidates for Members of Parliament in the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia, in all six electoral districts almost three times as many signatures will be required compared with the previously applicable requirement which prescribed a minimum of 1,000 signatures.
Table 2. Data on the number of registered voters by municipalities and on the number of signatures required for the nomination of independent candidates for members of municipal councils and for mayors under the previous solution and under the new contested solution of 1%
| Municipality | Number of Registered Voters | Number of signatures (old solution) | Number of signatures (new solution – 1% of registered voters) |
| AERODROM | 67336 | at least 350 | 673 |
| ARACHINOVO | 10360 | at least 150 | 104 |
| BEROVO | 10459 | at least 150 | 105 |
| BITOLA | 77578 | at least 350 | 776 |
| BOGDANCI | 6468 | at least 100 | 65 |
| BOGOVINJE | 28641 | at least 150 | 286 |
| BOSILOVO | 12197 | at least 150 | 122 |
| BRVENICA | 15920 | at least 150 | 159 |
| BUTEL | 32624 | at least 250 | 326 |
| VALANDOVO | 9852 | at least 100 | 99 |
| VASILEVO | 10876 | at least 150 | 109 |
| VEVCHANI | 2072 | at least 100 | 21 |
| VELES | 45063 | at least 250 | 451 |
| VINICA | 17119 | at least 150 | 171 |
| VRAPCHISHTE | 26835 | at least 150 | 268 |
| GAZI BABA | 61030 | at least 350 | 610 |
| GEVGELIJA | 18803 | at least 150 | 188 |
| GJORCHE PETROV | 38823 | at least 250 | 388 |
| GOSTIVAR | 81612 | at least 350 | 816 |
| GRADSKO | 3031 | at least 100 | 30 |
| DEBAR | 19334 | at least 150 | 193 |
| DEBRCA | 3952 | at least 100 | 40 |
| DELCHEVO | 14569 | at least 150 | 146 |
| DEMIRA KAPIJA | 3216 | at least 100 | 32 |
| DOJRAN | 2638 | at least 100 | 26 |
| DOLNENI | 11758 | at least 150 | 118 |
| ŽELINO | 25199 | at least 150 | 252 |
| ZELENIKOVO | 3731 | at least 100 | 37 |
| ZRNOVCI | 2514 | at least 100 | 25 |
| ILINDEN | 14554 | at least 150 | 146 |
| JEGUNOVCE | 10022 | at least 150 | 100 |
| KAVADARCI | 31982 | at least 250 | 320 |
| KARBINCI | 3170 | at least 100 | 32 |
| KARPOSH | 55675 | at least 350 | 557 |
| KISELA VODA | 52936 | at least 350 | 529 |
| KICHEVO | 50443 | at least 350 | 504 |
| KONCHE | 2719 | at least 100 | 27 |
| KOCHANI | 32570 | at least 250 | 326 |
| KRATOVO | 7561 | at least 100 | 76 |
| KRIVA PALANKA | 16540 | at least 150 | 165 |
| KRIVOGASHTANI | 4436 | at least 100 | 44 |
| KRUSHEVO | 7795 | at least 100 | 78 |
| KUMANOVO | 93635 | at least 350 | 936 |
| LIPKOVO | 26050 | at least 150 | 261 |
| LOZOVO | 1922 | at least 100 | 19 |
| MAVROVO I ROSTUSHE | 10356 | at least 150 | 104 |
| MAKEDONSKA KAMENICA | 6657 | at least 100 | 67 |
| MAKEDONSKI BROD | 4860 | at least 100 | 49 |
| MOGILA | 4743 | at least 100 | 47 |
| NEGOTINO | 15921 | at least 150 | 159 |
| NOVACI | 2503 | at least 100 | 25 |
| NOVO SELO | 10987 | at least 150 | 110 |
| OHRID | 51862 | at least 350 | 519 |
| PETROVEC | 7932 | at least 100 | 79 |
| PEHCHEVO | 3912 | at least 100 | 39 |
| PLASNICA | 5269 | at least 100 | 53 |
| PRILEP | 62271 | at least 350 | 623 |
| PROBISHTIP | 12301 | at least 150 | 123 |
| RADOVISH | 24442 | at least 150 | 244 |
| RANKOVCE | 2922 | at least 100 | 29 |
| RESEN | 15613 | at least 150 | 156 |
| ROSOMAN | 3300 | at least 100 | 33 |
| SARAJ | 33448 | at least 250 | 334 |
| SVETI NIKOLE | 14269 | at least 150 | 143 |
| SOPISHTE | 5313 | at least 100 | 53 |
| STARO NAGORICHANE | 3050 | at least 100 | 31 |
| STRUGA | 61620 | at least 350 | 616 |
| STRUMICA | 49758 | at least 250 | 498 |
| STUDENICHANI | 17371 | at least 150 | 174 |
| TEARCE | 22459 | at least 150 | 225 |
| TETOVO | 86550 | at least 350 | 866 |
| CENTAR | 43546 | at least 250 | 435 |
| CENTAR ZHUPA | 7383 | at least 100 | 74 |
| CHAIR | 57517 | at least 350 | 575 |
| CHASHKA | 6089 | at least 100 | 61 |
| CHESHINOVO-OBLESHEVO | 5138 | at least 100 | 51 |
| CHUCHER-SANDEVO | 8717 | at least 100 | 87 |
| SHTIP | 41469 | at least 250 | 415 |
| SHUTO ORIZARI | 23521 | at least 150 | 235 |
| TOTAL | 1815350 | 18154 |
From the data in the table it emerges that in the local elections, in as many as 37 municipalities (out of a total of 80), the new legislative solution will require a greater number of signatures for the nomination of independent candidates for mayor or for member of a municipal council. For example, in the Municipality of Bitola the new legislative solution requires a minimum of 776 signatures, compared with 350 signatures under the previous solution; in Bogovinje 286 signatures instead of 150; in Veles 451 instead of 250 under the previous solution; in Vrapchishte 268 instead of 150 under the previous solution; in Gevgelija 188 instead of 150; in Gostivar 816 instead of 350; in Debar 193 instead of 150; in Zhelino 252 instead of 150; in Kavadarci 320 instead of 250; in Kichevo 504 instead of 350; in Kochani 326 instead of 250; in Kriva Palanka 165 instead of 150; in Kumanovo 936 instead of 350; in Lipkovo 261 instead of 150; in Negotino 159 instead of 150; in Ohrid 519 instead of 350; in Prilep 623 instead of 350; in Radovish 244 instead of 150; in Resen 159 instead of 150; in Struga 616 instead of 350; in Strumica 498 instead of 250 under the previous solution; in Studenichani 174 instead of 150; in Tearce 225 instead of 150; in Tetovo 866 instead of 350; in Shtip 415 instead of 250.
From these data it is evident that this concerns the larger municipalities, including the largest cities in the country, as well as all the municipalities within the City of Skopje, meaning that these are municipalities in which the largest number of voters are registered. Expressed precisely in figures, in these 37 municipalities a total of 1,523,116 voters are registered, representing approximately 84% of the electorate. By contrast, in the remaining 43 municipalities where, according to the new legislative solution (1% of the registered voters), fewer signatures are required than under the previously applicable solution, there are only 281,163 registered voters, which represent 16% of the electorate.
Most striking is the example of the Skopje municipalities and the City of Skopje, where in each municipality the number of signatures required for the nomination of independent candidates has been significantly increased, and for the nomination of a mayor or member of the council in the City of Skopje under the new legislative solution as much as 4.6 times more signatures will be required.
Table 3. Data on the number of registered voters by municipalities in the City of Skopje and in the City of Skopje, and data on the number of signatures required for the nomination of independent candidates for members of municipal councils and for mayors under the previous solution and under the new contested solution of 1%
| Municipality in the City of Skopje | Number of registered voters | Number of signatures required (old solution) | Number of signatures required (new solution) 1% |
| Aerodrom | 67336 | 350 | 673 |
| Butel | 32624 | 250 | 326 |
| Gazi Baba | 61030 | 350 | 610 |
| Gjorche Petrov | 38823 | 250 | 388 |
| Karposh | 55675 | 350 | 557 |
| Kisela Voda | 52936 | 350 | 529 |
| Saraj | 33448 | 250 | 334 |
| Centar | 43546 | 250 | 435 |
| Chair | 57517 | 350 | 575 |
| Shuto Orizari | 23521 | 150 | 235 |
| City of Skopje | 466456 | 1000 | 4664 |
The increase in the required number of signatures for the nomination of independent candidates, in the view of the Court, constitutes interference in the exercise of the electoral right of the citizens guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution, as the contested amendment makes it more difficult for citizens to propose independent candidates. The analysis of the history of the contested provisions – Article 61 paragraph 1 and Article 62 of the Electoral Code – shows that these provisions have been contained in the Electoral Code since its very inception, as they were envisaged in identical form in the basic text of the Code adopted in 2006, and as such have been applied in all elections and electoral cycles conducted in the country over the past almost two decades. Hence, the question arose before the Court as to the reasons why the legislator decided to amend these provisions after 18 years of their application in practice.
During the preliminary procedure, an opinion was requested from the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia as well as from the Government of the Republic of North Macedonia, to which a reminder was also sent. However, apart from the submitted Draft Law with its Explanatory Notes, neither the Assembly nor the Government submitted a response to the allegations set out in the initiative. The Explanatory Notes to the Draft Law state that it implements the recommendations of the OSCE/ODIHR Observation Mission as recorded in the final reports on the elections held in the country in recent years. Yet, as noted above, no justification was provided for the specific contested amendments to Article 61, Paragraph 1, and Article 62 of the Electoral Code.
In the Final Report of the OSCE/ODIHR Observation Mission of the local elections held in 2021, it was indicated that in practice, the required number of signatures for supporting independent members of the councils varied between 0.4% and 5% of the registered voters in the respective municipality, which is contrary to international good practice and the principle of equal opportunity to stand for election. It was noted that, in order to secure equal opportunities in the right to stand for election for all candidates, the required number of signatures in support of independent candidates should be proportionate to the actual number of registered voters in each electoral unit, therefore, it was recommended to consider the possibility of standardising the required number of signatures to no more than 1% of the registered voters, in accordance with international good practice.
From the phrasing “up to a maximum of 1%,” it is clear that the figure of 1% is set as the upper limit and the highest percentage of signatures that could be required for the nomination of independent candidates, leaving it to the state itself to determine the exact percentage within the possible range of 0.1% to 1% of signatures from registered voters. The reason why the legislator opted for the highest possible percentage remains unclear due to the absence of any justification with the Draft Law. The legislative amendment, which increases the required number of signatures for the nomination of independent candidates by two, three, or, in the case of the City of Skopje, even more than four times, constitutes a significant infringement of the right to stand for election, and in the absence of justified reasons from the legislator, this creates the impression that the change was made solely in the interest of the larger political parties, with the sole aim of reducing the number of independent candidates at the very outset of the electoral process. Without sufficiently substantiated and objective justification, this amendment cannot be considered justified for the achievement of any legitimate aim, nor can it be deemed necessary or proportionate.
The Court considers it necessary to point out that the practice of submitting laws to the Assembly without providing justification for the significant proposed amendments is unacceptable in a democratic society based on the rule of law, as it undermines legal certainty and the predictability of legal norms, which are essential components of that principle. This is all the more relevant given that the law in question is the Electoral Code, which regulates the electoral system and establishes the electoral rules that are a prerequisite for the conduct of free, fair, direct, and democratic elections as a fundamental value of the constitutional order of the Republic of North Macedonia. The disputed provisions are also significant because they do not merely involve a legal-technical substitution of one number of signatures for another, but rather a change in the condition under which citizens, as electoral subjects, may propose lists of candidates for participation in elections, and there is a real risk that candidates supported by citizens could be eliminated from the elections at the very outset, thereby restricting the electoral race to party lists of candidates alone. In view of these consequences, which directly affect the right of citizens to propose candidates for election, a right that is a constituent element of the electoral rights of the citizens guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution, the Court considers that the legislator, in drafting the legal amendments relating to the number of required signatures, should have adopted a more serious approach, including a prior analysis of the legal provisions and their application in practice, and to offer a well-founded justification for the reasons and objectives to be achieved by the proposed amendments, which, in the present case, was not done. Instead, the proposed amendments to the Electoral Code were made in an shortened procedure, with regard to the specific contested provisions, in a completely non-transparent manner and without public debate, or indeed any discussion at the session of the Assembly, in the period immediately before the 2024 elections, which also deviates from the international standards of the Venice Commission, which recommend that substantive electoral issues should not be subject to amendment at least one year before the date of the elections (Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, Venice Commission, 2002).
Political pluralism, as a fundamental value of the constitutional order enshrined in Article 8, Paragraph 1, Indent 5 of the Constitution, imposes several positive obligations on the state, as the guarantor of pluralism, to ensure that the various political options of citizens can be effectively expressed through participation, on equal and fair terms, in free and democratic elections. This primarily includes the obligation of the state to provide an appropriate legal framework for the effective exercise of electoral rights, prescribing fair conditions for the participation not only of less represented and vulnerable groups of citizens, but also of those citizens who stand as candidates independently of political parties. In other words, electoral legislation should encourage, rather than restrict, the pluralism of political views and opinions, it should create conditions for a pluralistic political climate, fair electoral competition, and an environment in which participation is promoted not only by political parties, but also by other groups and individuals in political and public life, in which, the citizens, as individuals, independent candidates can freely present their views and opinions that are often different from, or opposed to, those of political parties and party candidates. In this way, the abuse of political power by dominant political parties, which, because of their representation in the legislative body, create the rules of political competition to their own advantage and to the detriment of other political groups and non-party candidates, can be prevented.
In the view of the Court, the disputed legal provisions do not serve to achieve the above objectives of electoral legislation, because by increasing the number of signatures required for the nomination of independent candidates, these provisions eliminate such candidates from the electoral process and prevent them from exercising their right to stand for election as an element of passive suffrage, also restricts the electoral rights and the right to political action of the citizens who support them, as their choice is reduced to party candidates and political activity within the framework of political parties. Limiting the number of potential electoral subjects in the electoral process deprives elections of their democratic attributes of freedom and fairness, and directly undermines and weakens political pluralism as a fundamental value of the constitutional order under Article 8, Paragraph 1, Indent 5 of the Constitution.
On the basis of the above, the Court finds that the contested provisions of Articles 17 and 18 of the Law Amending the Electoral Code (“Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia”, No. 58/2024 of 11 March 2024) are not in accordance with the provisions of Article 8, Paragraph 1, Indents 3 and 5, Article 22, and Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia.
IV
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court, by a majority of votes, decided as set out in the operative part of this decision.
V
This decision shall take legal effect from the date of its publication in the “Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia”.
PRESIDENT
of the Constitutional Court
of the Republic of North Macedonia,
Darko Kostadinovski LLD