Global Integrity Report

Macedonia (FYROM) Home

Timeline

Notebook

Integrity Scorecard

2009 Assessment

Macedonia (FYROM): Integrity Indicators Scorecard

Macedonia (FYROM): Integrity Scorecard Report > Sub-Category: Judicial Accountability
Indicators		Score
36	Are judges appointed fairly?	50
37	Can members of the judiciary be held accountable for their actions?	83
38	Are there regulations governing conflicts of interest for the national-level judiciary?	79
39	Can citizens access the asset disclosure records of members of the national-level judiciary?	88

Indicator and sub-Indicator Details

Are judges appointed fairly?

36a: In law, there is a transparent procedure for selecting national-level judges.

Score:

YES

Comments: The Constitution states that the judges in the Constitutional Court are chosen by Parliament with absolute majority (Article 109) and the judges in the Appellate Courts, the Supreme Court, and the Administrative Court are chosen by the State Judicial Council

References: Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, Article 109; Law on the State Juridical Council, 2006, Article 41.

36b: In practice, professional criteria are followed in selecting national-level judges.

Score:

100

Comments: Professional criteria are met pro forma, but, in essence, judges might lack certain qualities for selection.

References: Interview with Elena Simonoska, Program Assistant in NVO Infocentar, Sept. 15, 2009, Skopje.

Interview with Rade Risteski, lawyer, Aug. 11, 2009.

Peer Review Comments: There is a lot of nepotism and political influence in selecting national-level judges.

36c: In law, there is a confirmation process for national-level judges (i.e. conducted by the legislature or an independent body).

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: The Law on Courts.

Peer Review Comments: The Juridical Council is responsible for nomination and suspension of the judges and is the only institution that can do this. There is no review on the council's rulings

Can members of the judiciary be held accountable for their actions?

37a: In law, members of the national-level judiciary are obliged to give reasons for their decisions.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: The Law on Courts (Official Gazette 64/2003).

37b: In practice, members of the national-level judiciary give reasons for their decisions.

Score:

100

Comments: Written clarification is necessary for the ruling to be valid.

References: Interview with Elena Simonoska, Program Assistant in NVO Infocentar, Sept. 15, 2009, Skopje.

Interview with Rade Risteski, lawyer, Aug. 11, 2009.

37c: In law, there is a disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) for the national-level judicial system.

Score:

YES

Comments: The constitution states that the State Judicial Council acts as a judicial disciplinary agency.

References: The Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, Article 105.

37d: In law, the judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) is protected from political interference.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: The Law for the State Judicial Council, 2006, Article 3.

Peer Review Comments: The problem is that with 11 members of the Court Council, if one political party is in power and the president of the state is from the same party, they can control 6 members of the council. The Minister of Justice, who is also a member of the Council, is more equal than the other members of the Council.

37e: In practice, when necessary, the judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) initiates investigations.

Score:

100

$Scoring Criteria :: 100 Score Criteria: The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) aggressively starts investigations -- or participates fully with cooperating agencies\' investigations -- into judicial misconduct. The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) is fair in its application of this power. 50 Score Criteria: The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) will start or cooperate in investigations, but often relies on external pressure to set priorities, or has limited effectiveness when investigating. The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism), though limited in effectiveness, is still fair in its application of power. 0 Score Criteria: The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) rarely investigates on its own or cooperates in other agencies\' investigations, or the judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) is partisan in its application of this power.$

Comments:

References: Interview with Elena Simonoska, Program Assistant in NVO Infocentar, Sept. 15, 2009, Skopje.

Interview with Rade Risteski, lawyer, Aug. 11, 2009.

Peer Review Comments: External pressure is often crucial to set priorities and the agency has limited investigative effectiveness.

37f: In practice, when necessary, the judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) imposes penalties on offenders.

Score:

100

Comments: The Judicial Disciplinary Agency is slow to act and unwilling to take on politically powerful offenders.

References: Interview with Elena Simonoska, Program Assistant in NVO Infocentar, Sept. 15, 2009, Skopje.

Interview with Rade Risteski, lawyer, Aug. 11, 2009.

Are there regulations governing conflicts of interest for the national-level judiciary?

38a: In law, members of the national-level judiciary are required to file an asset disclosure form.

Score:

YES

Comments: Article 34 (1) states that any elected or non-elected state official is required to file an asset disclosure report at the beginning and the end of the mandate/term. Article 35 states that any change in the financial status of an official that exceeds 20 average salaries (as calculated in the previous three-month period) must be reported to the State Commission for the Prevention of Corruption and the State Office for Public Revenue.

References: The Law for the Prevention of Corruption, 2004, Articles 34 (1) and 35.

38b: In law, there are regulations governing gifts and hospitality offered to members of the national-level judiciary.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: The Law for the Prevention of Corruption, 2004, Article 31.

38c: In law, there are requirements for the independent auditing of the asset disclosure forms of members of the national-level judiciary.

Score:

YES

Comments: The State Commission for the Prevention of Corruption is described in Part V of this law.

References: The Law for the Prevention of Corruption, 2004, Part V.

38d: In law, there are restrictions for national-level judges entering the private sector after leaving the government.

Score:

YES

$Scoring Criteria :: YES: A YES score is earned if there are regulations restricting national-level judges\' ability to take positions in the private sector after leaving government that would present a conflict of interest, including positions that directly seek to influence their former government colleagues. NO: A NO score is earned if no such restrictions exist.$

Comments: The Law for the Prevention of Corruption puts a three-year restriction for involvement in the private sector after leaving the government. Article 28 prohibits the starting of a business in the sector in which the person has worked as a state official and Article 29 prohibits the buying of stocks in the companies which have been audited by or have cooperated with the entity where the official has worked.

References: The Law for the Prevention of Corruption, 2004, Articles 28 and 29.

Peer Review Comments: Article 28 for the Law for Preventing Corruption says that if a person leaves the government and starts to work in the private sector during the next three years, he is obligated to report it in the state Commission for Preventing Corruption.

38e: In practice, the regulations restricting post-government private sector employment for national-level judges are effective.

Score:

100

Comments:

References: Interview with Elena Simonoska, Program Assistant in NVO Infocentar, Sept. 15, 2009, Skopje.

Interview with Rade Risteski, lawyer, Aug. 11, 2009.

Peer Review Comments: Its effectivness hasn't been proved yet.

38f: In practice, the regulations governing gifts and hospitality offered to members of the national-level judiciary are effective.

Score:

100

Comments: There is no effective control system.

References: Interview with Elena Simonoska, Program Assistant in NVO Infocentar, Sept. 15, 2009, Skopje.

Interview with Rade Risteski, lawyer, Aug. 11, 2009.

38g: In practice, national-level judiciary asset disclosures are audited.

Score:

100

Comments:

References: Interview with Elena Simonoska, Program Assistant in NVO Infocentar, Sept. 15, 2009, Skopje.

Interview with Rade Risteski, lawyer, Aug. 11, 2009.

Can citizens access the asset disclosure records of members of the national-level judiciary?

39a: In law, citizens can access the asset disclosure records of members of the national-level judiciary.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: The Law for Free Access to Public Information, 2006.

Peer Review Comments: They are available on the website at the state Commission for Preventing Corruption.

39b: In practice, citizens can access judicial asset disclosure records within a reasonable time period.

Score:

100

Comments: Although the access to that kind of public information is regulated, it usually takes too long.

References: Interview with Elena Simonoska, Program Assistant in NVO Infocentar, Sept. 15, 2009, Skopje.

Interview with Rade Risteski, lawyer, Aug. 11, 2009.

Peer Review Comments: Judicial asset disclosure records are available online.

Peer Review Comments: The judicial asset-disclosure records are available online.

39c: In practice, citizens can access judicial asset disclosure records at a reasonable cost.

Score:

100

Comments:

References: Interview with Elena Simonoska, Program Assistant in NVO Infocentar, Sept. 15, 2009, Skopje.

Interview with Rade Risteski, lawyer, Aug. 11, 2009.

39d: In practice, the asset disclosure records of the national-level judiciary are of high quality.

Score:

100

$Scoring Criteria :: 100 Score Criteria: The asset disclosure records of the national-level judiciary are complete and detailed, providing the public with an accurate and updated accounting of the individuals\' sources of income, investments, and other financial interests. 50 Score Criteria: The asset disclosure records of the national-level judiciary contain some useful information but may be lacking important details, including politically sensitive investment or other financial arrangements in which the individual has an interest. 0 Score Criteria: The asset disclosure records of the national-level judiciary are overly general, lack any meaningful detail, and do not provide a clear accounting of the individuals\' sources of income, investments, and other financial assets.$

Comments:

References: Interview with Elena Simonoska, Program Assistant in NVO Infocentar, Sept. 15, 2009, Skopje.

Interview with Rade Risteski, lawyer, Aug. 11, 2009.

Peer Review Comments: The records contain some useful information, but may be lacking important details like financial arrangements in which the individual has an interest.