On 24 March 2026, a roundtable on the topic “Introduction of a Constitutional Complaint?” was held at the Constitutional Court, with the support of the Delegation of the European Union in Skopje. As part of the event, a presentation was delivered by Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska, former judge of the European Court of Human Rights and expert engaged under the EU-funded project. Nikolovska stated:
A wide range of contributors have pointed to the need to introduce a constitutional complaint, and it is evident that this is an issue that falls within the realm of politics; it is therefore somewhat inappropriate for us to discuss it from that perspective. It is clear that political will is lacking, and for that reason the matter should be revisited when such will becomes evident.
However, I would like to draw attention to several aspects concerning legal protection, which, in my view, is fundamentally different from the protection afforded before the ordinary courts. Unfortunately, there are many differing opinions, and I believe it will be difficult to reach a single, unified position on how constitutional legal protection should be exercised. I would therefore point to several existing possibilities and consider how they might be further elaborated. The European Court of Human Rights has not yet ruled on whether the protection of human rights through the Constitutional Court must be exhausted, or whether it should be left to the applicant to choose the legal remedy. Secondly, there is the opinion of the Venice Commission. Thirdly, there are extraordinary legal remedies, which in practice are no longer truly “extraordinary” as defined in the Court’s internal act; for some of these, the European Court of Human Rights has already expressed a position. The European Court of Human Rights is also in possession of a letter from the former President of this Court, Jordan Arsov, indicating that the Constitutional Court functions, in a sense, as a subsidiary body which may, but is not obliged to, decide on matters concerning the protection of human rights.
I have been considering what solutions might be available without waiting for constitutional amendments. Our state is a signatory to the Protocol which allows for the requesting of advisory opinions from the European Court of Human Rights, and I believe that this legal instrument could be utilised by the Constitutional Court itself. Where the highest constitutional legal questions remain unresolved and subject to differing interpretations—taking into account existing practice and the fact that applicants may choose which legal remedy to pursue—it would be appropriate to seek advisory opinions from the Court in Strasbourg in relation to constitutional protection.