The President of the Constitutional Court, Darko Kostadinovski LLD, in an interview for the programme “With Facts”, broadcast on 8 April 2026 on MRT 1, addressed several current issues related to the Court’s decisions, the position of the judiciary and constitutional judiciary, the Law on the Use of Languages, the Collective Agreement for Culture, constitutional complaints, political pressure on the Court, and the reforms which, according to him, are necessary to strengthen the institution.
President Kostadinovski sent a clear message to the public regarding the Law on the Use of Languages, which is currently the subject of proceedings before the Court, emphasising that unfounded fears and political tensions are being created around this issue. According to him, the Constitutional Court has no intention of restricting rights, but rather of protecting and advancing them.
“I would like to make an appeal because I see far too much manipulation surrounding this issue. No one will touch the Albanian language. The Constitutional Court exists to help ensure that constitutionally guaranteed rights – whether linguistic rights or equitable representation – are protected, not abolished. These are constitutional categories, and therefore I absolutely reject such claims that someone seeks to abolish, reduce the use of, or endanger the Albanian language. Such allegations are entirely inaccurate.”
He stressed that the Court’s decisions will aim to facilitate the practical implementation of these rights.
“Our decisions can only facilitate the use of the Albanian language, so that our fellow Albanian citizens can remain assured that no one will touch the Albanian language.”
Kostadinovski pointed out that the opinion of the Venice Commission should not be interpreted selectively, as it contains both praise and criticism.
“First, the Venice Commission states that, unlike the 2008 law, the 2018 law significantly expands the use of the Albanian language, and the Commission says this is commendable. It even welcomes the willingness of the authorities in Macedonia to advance the languages of communities, which is indeed praiseworthy. However, the Venice Commission also notes that, in certain areas, some provisions go too far.”
Why Did the Constitutional Court Annul the Amendments on Judges’ Salaries?
One of the central topics of the interview was the Constitutional Court’s decision to annul the law reducing the salary coefficients of judges. According to Kostadinovski, such a legal solution directly affects the independence of the judiciary.
“The judiciary, as a separate branch of power within our constitutional order, enjoys the strongest possible guarantees for its independence and autonomy… The Constitutional Court found that independence and autonomy had been violated because we view the independence of the judiciary in its entirety; material independence is an integral and inseparable part of the institutional independence of the courts.”
He stressed that numerous international standards support this position.
“There are numerous international standards, such as the European Charter on the Statute for Judges and the opinions of the Venice Commission… All of them indicate that even in times of crisis judges’ salaries cannot be reduced. Why? Because that is how their independence and autonomy are guaranteed. In circumstances such as those in Macedonia, where distrust in the entire system, including the judiciary, is at a historic low… it is worth protecting the independence and autonomy of the judiciary, but the judiciary must also begin delivering real results.”
Unlike the issue concerning judges, the matter of prosecutors’ salaries remains unresolved. Kostadinovski explained that proceedings have been initiated on this matter, but the required majority for a decision was not secured.
Referring to the Law on the Reduction of Coefficients for Appointed Officials and Functionaries, Kostadinovski noted that the problem was not only the coefficients themselves, but also the manner in which constitutional judges were normatively treated together with holders of legislative and executive offices. Furthermore, according to him, in no country with a constitutional court is the salary of a constitutional judge lower than that of a supreme court judge.
“The salaries of constitutional judges were reduced three times. The same constitutional guarantees of independence applicable to the judiciary also apply to constitutional judges, and constitutional justice enjoys even stronger guarantees under international standards. Chapter III of our Constitution regulates the organisation of state power and covers the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. After Chapter III comes Chapter IX on the Constitutional Court. This means we are not subject to the traditional principle of separation of powers in the same way, and international standards state that the position of the President of the Constitutional Court cannot be equated with that of a Deputy Speaker of Parliament. The provision stipulated that the salary coefficient for the President of the Constitutional Court and the Deputy Speakers of Parliament would be determined equally. With today’s decision restoring the previous legal rule for calculating coefficients, the salaries of Supreme Court judges will become higher than those of constitutional judges, and such an absurdity does not exist anywhere in the world. There is no country with a Constitutional Court where the salary of a constitutional judge is lower than that of a supreme court judge.”
Why Did the Constitutional Court Open Proceedings on the Entire Collective Agreement for Culture?
President Kostadinovski explained that the Court initiated proceedings regarding the Collective Agreement for Culture in its entirety because the analysis revealed that several of its provisions could be constitutionally problematic, not merely individual articles.
“This means that the Constitutional Court expressed doubts regarding the constitutionality of the entire collective agreement. The applicant challenged the agreement as a whole, but also specifically challenged certain provisions. When we conducted our analysis and saw how many provisions could be constitutionally questionable, we decided to initiate proceedings concerning the entire agreement,” stated the President.
Kostadinovski further clarified that the fact that proceedings had previously been conducted regarding the same agreement does not constitute an obstacle, because a law may be reviewed multiple times from different constitutional and legal perspectives, whereas in previous cases the Court had been limited to the allegations raised in the initiatives.
“Let me clarify this to avoid misunderstandings: before the Constitutional Court, one law can be challenged not three times, but thirty times, and from different constitutional and legal perspectives. We took into account our previous decisions from 2021, but at that time the initiatives challenged entirely different aspects of the collective agreement. The Court then limited itself to the allegations in the initiative and did not go deeper, because sometimes this depends on the reporting judge and many other circumstances. Acting ex officio, as we have the authority to do, if we assess or identify unconstitutionality, we may continue the proceedings on other grounds as well. However, at that time the Court restricted itself only to the allegations in the initiative. Therefore, there should be no doubts regarding today’s decision. Once our ruling is published, everyone interested or expressing doubts will be able to see the legal arguments, because the collective agreement indeed contained several constitutionally and legally problematic provisions.”
Regarding the final decision, Kostadinovski stressed that it is impossible to prejudge whether it will annul or repeal the agreement, as the Court must consider all relevant circumstances.
“I cannot prejudge whether the decision will be annulment or repeal; we must take all circumstances into account, including this one. A solution will have to be found. To repeal, hypothetically speaking, I personally would not favour an annulment decision because the consequences of such an annulment decision are extremely serious – it would mean that all individual acts adopted under it would lose legal effect and become null and void. Personally, I would not opt for an annulment decision, I would go for a repeal, which would mean that from the date of publication of our decision in the Official Gazette, there would no longer be a collective agreement in force. Both parties would then need to sit down again, negotiate, and conclude a new agreement,” emphasised Kostadinovski.
In such a scenario, he stressed that salaries could no longer be paid on the basis of that agreement, and that existing legal provisions would need to apply until a new agreement is reached.
“No, salaries could not continue to be paid under that Collective Agreement. In that case, the statutory solutions would need to be activated to determine whether payment is possible under the law – and certainly some possibility exists.”
Constitutional Court Sessions Available Live to the Public
President Kostadinovski emphasised that increasing transparency is one of the key priorities of his mandate, particularly in light of the low level of public trust in institutions. In this regard, the Court introduced live broadcasting of its sessions as a concrete measure to increase openness toward the public.
“At my very first press conference after becoming President, I said that my highest priority would be maximum openness. Why? Because citizens’ distrust in the entire system is so great that radical steps are truly necessary. One such radical step is the live broadcasting of Constitutional Court sessions.”
He pointed out that the decision was not adopted unanimously and that, although such practice is rare, it is necessary in the current social context.
“Yes, there is no similar example in Europe. There is none. But there is also no other country where trust is at only 2%.”
Kostadinovski believes that judges should be aware of the public interest and the impact their decisions have on all citizens, which is why the public has the right to directly observe how discussions and decisions are conducted.
“They should feel the pressure of the public because our decisions affect all citizens. Our decisions are not like those of ordinary courts concerning only the parties to a dispute. Our decisions concern every citizen, from the first to the last, and citizens have the right to know who their constitutional judges are, what their legal reasoning is, and how they act. There is no better prevention, protection, or way to restore trust than maximum transparency.”
He additionally noted that initial indicators already point to growing public interest and trust in the Court, reflected in the increased number of initiatives filed before it.
“One indication which, for me, is a serious sign that citizens’ trust in the Constitutional Court is returning is that in the first three months of this year we have received 150 initiatives. Last year was a record year with 300 resolved cases. Just imagine: in the first three months alone, according to the latest information I checked today, we already have 150 registered cases.”
More information from the interview: