Today, a roundtable was held at the Constitutional Court on the topic: Introduction of a Constitutional Complaint?, at which addresses were delivered by the President of the Constitutional Court, Darko Kostadinovski LLD, the Prime Minister, Hristijan Mickoski, and the Ambassadors of the European Union and the OSCE, Michalis Rokas and Kilian Wahl. Below is the full address by President Kostadinovski:
Allow me to express my sincere gratitude to the Delegation of the European Union for the implementation of the project “Enhanced Capacities of the Constitutional Court”, as well as for the continuous support it provides to the Constitutional Court. Such events are necessary and important; through them we convey the message that the process of strengthening the rule of law and the protection of human freedoms and rights is a constant obligation of every democratic state and of all institutions that bear this responsibility.
Distinguished participants,
The introduction of a constitutional complaint as an instrument for the direct protection of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and rights is a subject that is increasingly and consistently emerging as a matter of professional, political and public debate.
I shall not dwell on its importance and essence, which are straightforward: to enable the citizen, once all other legal remedies have been exhausted, to apply directly to the Constitutional Court and seek protection of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and rights.
In this context, I have never had any doubt as to the need for its introduction; rather, the natural question has been which of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution should be afforded direct and immediate constitutional judicial protection. As my colleagues, the Prime Minister, representatives of the profession and academia, and our international partners are present here today, I shall pause at this point, as it is more important for me to hear their views.
Distinguished guests,
The public, my colleagues, and all those who know me are aware that I am a frank realist, and I will therefore permit myself to make a candid observation. At certain periods in the past, the Constitutional Court did not always fulfil its constitutional role as envisaged by the framers of the Constitution.
For that very reason, a clear task stands before us today: for the Court to fully affirm its independence and autonomy. This task is not an obligation solely of the Constitutional Court, but also of the legislature and the executive. It is essential that constitutional adjudication be freed from any form of political influence and that the Court consistently act as a non-partisan, supra-ethnic, supra-religious institution, above any form of affiliation, with the sole aim of ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution and the effective protection of human freedoms and rights.
The Court is genuinely and firmly committed to this task. Among other measures, by deciding to broadcast its sessions publicly, the Court is embracing the new paradigm that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”. Politics must refrain from interfering in constitutional justice and demonstrate a higher level of constitutional and legal culture. However, this is not the only contribution that can be made by the political sphere through the executive and legislative branches. There is no doubt that the Constitutional Court remains the least reformed institution within our system. Accordingly, I had the opportunity today to discuss with the Prime Minister the need for a more profound institutional reform of the Constitutional Court. In particular, the issue of adopting a Law on the Constitutional Court, grounded in the Constitution and requiring a two-thirds majority, was raised, as was the introduction of the constitutional complaint. The time for such a step has long since arrived. The continuation of the status quo may create space for excessive judicial activism, which in certain circumstances could disturb the balance between the branches of power, or lead to what is termed a “juristocracy”. All of this should serve to strengthen the Court’s autonomy and independence.
This need was clearly emphasised at the Sixth Congress of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice. The Madrid Declaration noted that constitutional justice can fulfil its role only when the autonomy and independence of constitutional courts are fully guaranteed. Such independence is not an end in itself, but a necessary condition for ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution, the effective protection of fundamental rights, and the maintenance of the balance between the branches of power in a state governed by the rule of law.
The reason for this is simple yet fundamental: judicial independence constitutes a human right, inseparably linked to the individual’s right of access to justice, to a fair and impartial trial, and to equal legal protection.
Distinguished participants,
There is but one path of reason. Along that path, interlocutors either meet or pass one another by. I am pleased that today, on the key issues concerning the development of constitutional justice, the Prime Minister and I have indeed met upon that path of reason. I sincerely hope that this meeting and today’s discussions represent a step towards better times for constitutional justice.
Thank you for your attention.