Monthly Report (September 2009)

1. PUBLIC EVENTS AND VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

1.1. MoI changes its mind after working for two years on the draft law on criminal procedure!

1.2. Obstinacy in the administration!

1.3. National Preventive Mechanism in the amendments of the Ombudsman Law

1.4. Governmental “euthanasia” for the Macedonian civil society sector

1.5. It is time, to end the double standards in the procedure…

2. POLICE AND COURT CASES

2.1. The case of Tanja and Nace Gruevski

2.2. Availability of the Pardon Law to the convicted persons!?!

3. VIOLATION OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS

3.1. The case of Dobrila Krsteva

3.2. PHO “Gradski Apteki” (City Pharmacies)

_____________________________________________________________________

1. PUBLIC EVENTS AND VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

1.1. MoI changes its mind after working for two years on the draft law on criminal procedure!

In the past few years, an intensive work was underway on reforming the entire system of penal justice in the Republic of Macedonia. Most of the changes are foreseen in the criminal procedure, where following the example of the western democracies the inquisition concept of active court is abandoned and the contemporary accusatory procedure is implemented in which the burden of proof is entirely a responsibility of the public prosecution. This will put the court in a position of unbiased decision maker, while the procedure will be significantly faster. During the development of the new law, series of comparative researches on the best practices throughout the world and in Europe were conducted, and many domestic and foreign experts and practitioners were involved.

At the consultations held this September in Ohrid, also attended by the representatives of the Helsinki Committee, the Ministry of Interior (MoI) has expressed its utterly negative position towards important elements of the concept underlying the draft law. It seems that MoI, as so many times before, is only advocating its own interests and accepts and implements only the reforms that are in favor of the ministry.

After two years of work on the new concept of penal law, foreseeing radical changes in the role of public prosecutor and abolishing the investigating judges, MoI now reacts to the solutions offered in the new law on criminal procedure. Furthermore, the same representatives from the Ministry are taking part in the Commission’s work and so far they did not have remarks or comments on how and where the investigation and criminal procedure should be conducted.

The idea behind the investigative centers is to allow the public prosecutors to have a certain number of inspectors in their team, so they would not have to depend on MoI. This means that when the prosecutor receives the case, it should not be returned to the police for additional check up, but the necessary data will be gathered by the prosecutor, a practice that it is not possible to implement right now, because they simply do not have capacity for such thing. So, the public prosecutor’s office is dependant on MoI, which now takes over an authorization that according to the Constitution is granted to the public prosecutor’s office, because the decision on criminal prosecution, for numerous cases, is made by the police and not the prosecutor’s office. So this is about power struggle and not strengthening the efficacy in the fight against crime and corruption. On the other hand, the active prosecutor’s office with enhanced human and technical resources becomes significant control tool of the police in a society where the law should rule the politics.

The explanation of the Ministry of Interior Affairs is that MoI is against the opening of special investigative centers run by a prosecutor, where certain number of police inspectors will be hired, because these solutions are allegedly not sustainable in financial terms, violate the principle of specialization and create dualism in the hierarchical responsibility. However, this explanation is not valid and should have been stated at the very beginning. On contrary, the new concept offers more efficient procedures, increased efficacy and savings to the system as a whole. The specialization in the police is not violated with the investigative centers of the prosecutor’s office, because the close cooperation between the public prosecutor’s office and police is the first premise of the concept, which does not change anything else in the police procedure.

While the pointless debate between the public prosecutor’s office and police goes on, one quite important segment of the draft law is being forgotten – the right to defense. We are not surprised that MoI is satisfied because the defense is completely not informed about the investigations and is kept aside from the entire procedure. A modern concept of criminal justice must be consistent and carefully balanced between the tendency for efficacy in the fight against crime and protection of human rights of the defendants.

Have the police wondered what happens with the damaged and their rights? In the existing practice, the damaged party is mainly a mute witness of the court procedure without the right of even receiving copy of the minutes from the trial. The right to get a copy of the minutes is also not foreseen in the new draft law.

All these omissions established with the existing practice, no matter how minor or unimportant they look like, affect the right of the citizens and must be overcome in the initial period.

1.2. Self-will in the administration!

The amendments and supplements to the Law on Civil Servants were passed last month. They were aimed at creating modern, professional and efficient public administration, being able to exercise the rights and freedoms of the citizens, free of political influence. However, the cruel reality in which the employees of the state administration work, does not give us a chance to conclude that the amendments would contribute for fundamental changes in this area in order to create non-partisan administration.

We are witnessing dismissals on an everyday basis, where the basic legal provisions and elementary human rights are not observed.

A recent case was the dismissal of civil servants from the Suto Orizari municipality. The mayor passed a decision on June 15, 2009 to terminate the employment, without termination notice, to several civil servants employed for indefinite period of time, due to economical, organizational, technological and structural reasons.

The dissatisfied employees filed an appeal to the second instance Committee on the Labor Relations within the Government of the Republic of Macedonia, stating as reasons the political background of this act, having in mind that other persons were immediately hired on the same job positions, and violations of the provisions of the Labor Relations Act, which regulates the termination of employment without notice (Article 72[1], Article 75[2], Article 76[3] , Articles 95, 96, 97 and 98 of the Labor Relations Act).

The irregularities were also reported to the State Labor Inspectorate and because the second instance Committee did not make a decision in the legally prescribed time period, the clients decided to go to court.

In the meantime, as a result of the claims that the authorities did not proceed according to the law, the Helsinki Committee has addressed the State Labor Inspectorate and the second instance Committee.

Unfortunately, the second instance Committee “did not manage” to establish the violations made in the decision on termination of employment and simply rewrote the allegations and explanations for all employees. In some cases, as they were probably too busy, they even forgot to change the number of the decision against which an appeal was filed. Without looking into all claims, the appeals were rejected as ungrounded. On the other hand, the State Labor Inspectorate did more work than the Commission. The inspection supervision conducted on June 30, 2009 showed that there were omissions in the procedure and made a decision for revoking the decisions on termination. We received the one-sentence notice from the State Labor Inspectorate on August 27, 2009 (two months after the decision was made following the inspection supervision), but at the time of writing of this report (almost four months after) the mayor did not implement the orders of the inspector, nor has an intention of doing so.

Hence, the only option of the clients is to seek justice before the court of law, although the State Labor Inspectorate has established the violation of legal provisions. The authorizations of the Inspectorate “end” here, without taking into consideration whether its decisions are implemented and without undertaking measures to overcome this problem.

On the other hand, when the mayor assumed the function and several months afterwards he was registered in the employment agency as a manager of a private company, which is incompatible with the Electoral Code, which stipulates that an elected person, in this case a mayor, cannot be a manager or a member of a managing board in a company, so this also indicates how he has proceeded and respected the law.

The Committee reacted several times about this problem of failure to use all legal authorizations by state competent bodies that are available to them in terms of preventing the further violations of human rights.

With this way of proceeding not only of the lower, but also of the higher state bodies, we seriously doubt in the progress of the Republic of Macedonia towards the European integration and particularly the new system of job positions and career system where the party influences would be avoided, as well as employment and promotion of civil servants by merit. Unfortunately, we first need thorough reforms in public administration in order to be able to hope for practical implementation of legal provisions for civil servants.

1.3. National Preventive Mechanism in the amendments of the Ombudsman Law

In the course of September the amendments to the Law on Ombudsman were passed and published. They follow after the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was ratified by the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia in December 2008.

This Protocol stipulates establishment of special body, national preventive mechanisms, which should establish independent system of regular examination of the treatment of the persons deprived of their liberty in places of detention, with a view to strengthening, if necessary, their protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Experts, such as lawyers, medical doctors, various specialists, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, representatives of NGOs and people experienced in monitoring the detention places will be members of this body.

Each state will decide on the form of this body, but the practice shows cases where it may be the Ombudsman Office, then the so-called model of “Ombudsman Plus”, where the body is comprised by the Ombudsman and the NGO, and the third model is establishing completely new body for this purpose.

However, all these models have one thing in common, the need for inclusion of all stakeholders in the process of establishing the body, particularly the civil society, then transparency of the process, which would guarantee the credibility of the preventive mechanism and informing the public in order to designate the activities and places that are subject to monitoring.

With the Law on Ratification of the Optional Protocol, Macedonia has opted for a combined form of the models Ombudsman and Ombudsman Plus. Article 4 of this law regulates that “National Ombudsman of the Republic of Macedonia is appointed to act as national preventive mechanism.” But, “in cooperation and with prior consent of the Ombudsman, the non-governmental organizations registered in Macedonia and the organizations with humanitarian status in Republic of Macedonia, may take over some of the competences of the national preventive mechanism”.

Despite, the lack of transparency in the decision making on the model of the preventive mechanism, as well as the insufficient elaboration in the Law on ratification of the protocol, in which the comments of the non-governmental sector were not accepted, now even with the changes of the Law on Ombudsman there is no answer to the questions whether and in which form the non—governmental sector would be included, which organization from the civil society and based on which criteria this organization will be selected, what kind and how many experts will be involved and based on which criteria they will be selected.

Contrary to this, the amendments to the Law on Ombudsman stipulate that the “Ombudsman establishes a special body for protection of citizens from discrimination and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,”[4] as well as that this body would have regular and unannounced visits to the bodies, organizations and institutions in which the freedom of movement is restricted, for which a special report will be produced[5].

Although one of the conditions of the preventive mechanism to be truly independent and to have credibility in the society lies in the process of election and appointment of its members to be transparent and open to the public, the Macedonian public has received only the information that the by-laws regulating these issues would probably be adopted in the next six months.

The Committee welcomes the willingness of the Ombudsman to cooperate with the civil society sector, but believes that it is necessary for this commitment to be translated into legislative document, so that this issue is not left to the will of the ombudsman, but would be grounded on clearly defined conditions and competences.

The Helsinki Committee would like to remind once again on the importance and the necessity for establishment of National Preventive Mechanism for monitoring the detention places, which should be truly independent, competent and efficient in protection of human rights in order to promote the human rights in the country and to fulfill the obligations taken over by the state. Therefore, we appeal for transparency and openness of the entire process referring to the civil society sector in order not to put at stake the credibility of the newly established body.

1.4. Governmental “euthanasia” for the Macedonian civil society sector

How the government sees the third sector, what are the possibilities for effective partnership between them, is it possible for the Macedonian civil society sector to participate directly in the decision and policy making processes and which are the mechanisms for providing more efficient state funding for the civil society sector? These are some of the questions raised about the relations between the governmental and non-governmental sector in the country.

More specifically, the Macedonian government is no exception from what IMF has observed in many countries: “The researches highlight that the governments have bad resource management, increasing the inequality and reducing the cohesions in the society.”[6] The increased inequalities and reduced cohesions are central and interrelated components of a government that uses political power for distribution of income and wealth. The inability of governments to provide development is clearly seen in the inability to reduce the poverty and provide economic growth. But the main reason for this does not lie in the lack of functionality of the political system, nor the conduct of the political elites, but it is embedded in the low level of “common democracy” and most of all, the lack of real and functional cooperation with the civil sector.

The maturity of the civil society in a country is judged by the real state of non-governmental organization, whose objective is to help resolving the important problems for the public in one way or another, which cannot be covered by the state and its institutions due to lack of resources and interest, other priorities or simply ignorance.

The special responsibility of the third sector in Macedonia (in terms of building civil society and facilitating the transition processes) is the constant need for communication with national institutions. In fact, the relations with the institutions have shaped the development of the Macedonia’s civil society sector. The lack of living tradition in functioning of the civil society is part of the problem in the relations between NGOs and the state, and somehow this could be considered as a feature typical of young democracies.

The above stated raises the question on the survival and the legitimate sources of funding for the civil society sector in Macedonia. Less money from the state, less money from private domestic sponsors (which are not very much inclined to the third sector, as they have their own reasons) and (mainly) money from external donors.

The money earmarked by the state for development of the civil society is so little that it “only gives you hope to apply for the next round of money allocation.” The amount of the annual budget for providing state funding to the NGOs is not known, neither the number of NGOs that “fight” to get this money. Of course, the financial assistance is granted to unknown organizations with unknown projects. The others are only left with the hope.

This is substantiated by the fact that the call for applications was opened in February by the Ministry of Finance for allocating funds for non-governmental organizations for activities that should be realized by the end of the year and consequently the money to be spent by the end of the year. However, there is still no feedback from the call, so the dilemma is whether the state aid will survive the rebalance of the budget; when the government will allocate the money and to which organizations; when these activities will be implemented??? These are questions raised by the yearlong, unsolved phenomena in this area – how the money from the state budget is spent, which candidate and project was selected, what are the priorities in financing the programs and how important they are for the Macedonian society. At the end, can this money and the money generally provided from the state budget for the civil society sector ensure its existence, which by default should be independent?

However, when it is not known based on what criteria a project is approved and another one rejected, when the applicants do not know why the competitor was much better, when the society does not know the content of the approved projects, as there is no information about this, there are serious doubts in the sincerity of governmental intentions and casts shadow on this process. It is clear that in fact this is subjective system, with a purpose to kill the Macedonian civil society sector easily and painlessly.

1.5. It is time, to end the double standards in the procedure…

In the past couple of months we witnessed several cases of food poisoning of children from several primary schools and the child resort in Ljubanci village. We support the measures and the efforts of the Ministry of Health and other competent bodies taken against the responsible persons in this case. Unfortunately, we have to note that if this procedure followed after the first case of food poisoning and not a month after, it might have prevented the other cases with detrimental effects on the child health and education.

In this respect, we call the competent bodies to react in a timely manner for every incident, particularly involving children, in a same way in which the state bodies and institutions act for cases which positively affect their ratings in the public.

2. POLICE AND JUDICIAL CASES

2.1. The case of Tanja and Nace Gruevski

Ms. Tanja Gruevska and Mr. Nace Gruevski, formally employed in ADOR QBE Macedonia, addressed the Macedonian Helsinki Committee.

The employer[7] made a decision for termination of employment of Ms. Tanja Gruevska and Mr. Nace Gruevski due to structural and organizational changes. With the decision, one-time compensation in form of severance pay amounting to twelve net salaries would be paid to Ms. Gruevska, while one net salary would be paid to Mr. Gruevski.

Dissatisfied with the decisions as of December 6, 2004 and December 10, 2004, Ms. Gruevska and Mr. Gruevski complained to the Managing Board of ADOR QBE, which rejected the complaint as ungrounded.

After this decision, Ms. Gruevska and Mr. Gruevski sought court protection of their rights.

The Basic Court Skopje II Skopje proceeding upon the request of the clients, reached a verdict[8] rejecting the lawsuit of the clients. The Appellate Court Skopje, proceeding upon the complaint of the clients passed a verdict[9], accepting the complaint and changing the ruling of the Basic Court Skopje II. The same verdict accepted the lawsuit of the plaintiffs, revoked the decisions made by the general managers of ADOR QBE Macedonia, Skopje, which terminated the employment of the plaintiffs due to structural and organizational changes and the decisions of the Managing Board and has obligated the accused to return the plaintiffs to work and to allocate them on job positions appropriate to their professional education. The verdict went into effect on January 3, 2008 and was executed on February 13, 2008.

Based on the executive verdict, Ms. Gruevska and Mr. Gruevski, through an executor, submitted an order for returning to work and entrusting them with the activities they performed previously. Proceeding upon the complaint of ADOR QBE, the Basic Court Skopje II Skopje passed a decision[10], rejecting the complaint. While proceeding upon the complaint of ADOR QBE, the Appellate Court Skopje passed a decision[11] on accepting the complaint and changing the decision of the Basic Court, establishing that some irregularities were made in the execution, so all undertaken activities with the order were not in force.

In the explanation of this ruling, the Appellate Court refers to Article 104 of the Labor Relations Act saying that “Employment shall terminate through law enforcement when employees reach 64 years of age and accrue a minimum of 15 years of service. Upon the request of the employee, the employer shall extend the employment contract at most until the employee reaches 65 years of age, unless otherwise stipulated by law”.

The main argument of the Appellate Court for reaching this verdict is the fact that in the meantime Mr. Nace Gruevski has obtained the right to be retired based on his age, while Ms. Tanja Gruevska has obtained disability pension.

In a period of one year, two other verdicts were reached by the Basic Court[12] and a verdict of the Appellate Court[13], in which the explanation for rejecting the order issued by the executors is exactly the same.

All above mentioned verdicts refer to Article 104 of the Labor Relations Act, but it is symptomatic why no one takes into account the strict provisions of the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance stipulated in Article 154, which says “the beneficiary of pension, while still at work or while performing full-time activities in the Republic of Macedonia or abroad, shall receive 30% of the pension. The beneficiary of pension, stipulated in paragraph 1 of this Article, who works half of the full time, shall receive 50% of the pension, while if the work is less than the half of the full time shall receive 70% of the pension.”

In this specific case, although there is a valid and executive court decision, but also clear legal provisions that regulate this issue, the clients cannot exercise their rights, i.e. to find way out of the court labyrinths in which they are stuck.

The Helsinki Committee of Human Rights of Republic of Macedonia is seriously concerned as a result of the chaotic situation in judiciary and selective implementation of legal provisions (failure to implement the provisions from the Law on pension and disability insurance) i.e. reaching court rulings that are directly against the legal provisions, thus bringing into question the respect and protection of human rights. The Committee sincerely hopes that the court ruling will be executed and the violation of rights of the clients will be removed and advises the clients to seek justice in front of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

2.2. Availability of the Pardon Law to the convicted persons!?!

A larger group of convicts have complained in written to the allegedly bad cooperation between the Ministry of Justice and the President of the Republic of Macedonia in the amnesty procedure.

The convicted persons have informed us that ten months ago they have submitted requests to the President of the Republic of Macedonia to be pardoned, according to the provisions of the Pardon Law, with an explanation that they have met the conditions. The requests submitted to the competent basic courts were forwarded in a timely manner to the Ministry of Justice. The first obstacle they met was the failure of the Ministry of Justice to forward these requests to the President of the Republic of Macedonia, as a competent body proceeding upon the requests.

The applicants believe that there is a tendency, bias and illegality, which prevents them from exercising their right guaranteed by the constitution. In addition, the convicted persons have stated that although their submitted requests for pardoning were not resolved, they are prevented from submitting new request for pardoning.

The Helsinki Committee has notified the two state competent bodies on the complaint it has received and requested an official response.

It was requested from the President of the Republic of Macedonia to inform us: how many requests for pardoning have been submitted in 2008 (how many of them were submitted by the convicts and how many were ex-officio requests of the Justice Minister); how many of the submitted requests were resolved (how many positive, how many negative) and how many of the submitted requests were not resolved, i.e. it was not proceeded upon them, an information we received from the convicts themselves, as they were prevented from filing new request, without resolving the previous request, having in mind Article 6 paragraph 2 of Law on Pardoning.

From the Justice Ministry it was requested to notify us how many requests for pardoning have been submitted by the convicts in 2008 (or their relatives, in accordance with Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Pardon Law) and how many were ex-officio requests by the Justice Minister in accordance with Article 2 paragraph 3 of the same law. In addition, we requested information on how many requests on pardoning were received in 2008, how many of these requests were forwarded from the Ministry to the President of the Republic of Macedonia, for how many requests the Ministry has given positive signal and for how many negative and how many of the requests were not resolved i.e. the procedure has not been initiated, an information we received from the convicts themselves, as they were prevented from filing new request, without resolving the previous request, having in mind Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Pardon Law.

Unfortunately, despite the numerous letters and interventions[14] to the competent state bodies, the Helsinki Committee did not receive feedback. The question raised on “How to exercise the right to pardon, stipulated in Article 1 and 2 of the Pardon Law?” was unfortunately left unanswered. However, the convicts have got the worst of it. They are deprived of the possibility to exercise this right[15], because although they have submitted a request (Article 6 paragraph2[16]), they did not receive a response in written. So they have entered a vicious circle, you have the right to request, you do make the request, but you do not get written response, after which you are not allowed to make another request, because you do not have the written decision. This may be result of the fact that someone obviously forgets to fulfill the duties – to write decisions for rejecting the request.

The Helsinki Committee regrets that the allegations of the convicts proved to be true this time and the exercise of their legally guaranteed rights have been prevented exactly by the competent state body, which should in fact guarantee these rights.

3. VIOLATION OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS

3.1. The case of Dobrila Krsteva

Ms. Dobrila Krsteva informed us that she submitted a request[17] to the Ministry of Finance for decentralization of real estate, property including the lot KP No. 264 or under the new number 2683.

The Commission that makes decision on denationalization requests for the municipalities of Karpos and Cair, only partially accepted the request of the client, as the request for denationalization of the lot KP No. 264 i.e. KP No. 2683 was refused with an explanation that after the on-site inspection it was established that a building was constructed on this land so it cannot be subject of real return.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the client lodged an appeal to the second instance governmental commission, but in the meantime the Ministry of Transport and Communications – Sector for Documentation and Management of Construction Land made a decision to transform the right to use the construction land into right to ownership, upon the previous ownership of the disputed lot, on behalf of AD “Plastika” factory for processing plastic – Skopje.

After the detailed analysis of this case, the Helsinki Committee realized that the transformation was against Article 50, paragraph 1 and 2[18] of the Law on Construction Land (Official Gazette 53/2001), because AD “Plastika” did not have the capacity of former owner in the period when the land was nationalized. In addition, the decision is against the Ordinance[19] on the manner and conditions for transformation of the right to use construction land in ownership of the Republic of Macedonia into right to ownership or right to long-term lease, where it is clearly stated that the person requesting the transformation is obliged to provide evidence to confirm the capacity of former owner or heir to the former owner.

The decision of the Ministry of Transport and Communication does not include a description of the construction land, which is subject to transformation, in accordance with the certificate from the urban plan or urban project, which according to the law is mandatory part of the decision on transformation.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office of Republic of Macedonia[20] made a motion to the Ministry for deeming the decision as null and void and repeating the transformation procedure. The Ministry informed the Public Prosecutor’s Office that they would wait for the outcome of the court procedure, which was underway, and after receiving the court verdict they would decide on the motion.

Although in several occasions the Helsinki Committee addressed the Ministry of Transport and Communications to obtain information on this case and how it will be resolved, having in mind the fact that the court verdict was already reached, but we only stumbled upon their SILENCE.

The Helsinki Committee wonders whether the silence and the passive attitude of the competent Ministry, not undertaking appropriate activities upon the motion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, means turning a blind eye to the violations of the law and concealing the irregularities. The Committee still hopes and waits that this case will finally come to an end, the irregularities will be removed, the legal norms will be observed and the competent bodies will defend and protect the rights of the client.

3.2. PHO “Gradski Apteki” (City Pharmacies)

With the decision of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia and the decision of the Public Health Organization (PHO) “Gradski Apteki” – Skopje, the PHO “Gradski Apteki” – Skopje was fully privatized. With the initial sales contract, besides the 5% and 20% shares of the employees, there are also 25% shares of Alkaloid AD Skopje, 25% of Farma Korp DOO Skopje and 25% of Zegin DOO Skopje.

In accordance with Article 18 paragraph 1 line 2 of the Law on Protection of Competition, a concentration shall be deemed to arise where a change of control on a lasting basis results from the acquisition, by one or more persons already controlling at least one undertaking, or by one or more undertakings, whether by purchase of securities or assets, by contract or by any other means prescribed by law, of direct or indirect control of the whole or parts of one or more other undertakings.

In case of purchasing securities in PHO Gradska Apteka, by Alkaloid AD Skopje, Farma Korp DOO Skopje and Zegin DOO Skopje, they assumed joint control over the PHO Gradska Apteka – Skopje, and based on the agreement as of June 1, 2006, the purchasers of the shares have become participants in the concentration.

In accordance with Article 16, paragraph 1 line 3 of the Law on Protection of Competition, the participants in the concentration shall be obliged to notify a concentration to the Commission, if the participation on the market of one of the undertakings is more than 40% or their joint participation on the market is more than 60%.

Based on this data a summary list was compiled on November 29, 2006, providing details of the income generated per pharmacy and the total income of the 124 pharmacies. Based on the income generated by Zegin DOO Skopje, it was calculated that its market share on the relevant market is 41.96% (42%).

In accordance with Article 13, paragraph 3 of the Law on Protection of Competition, it shall be presumed that an undertaking has a dominant position, if it participates on the relevant market with more than 40%, unless the undertaking proves the opposite.

Therefore, a decision was made obliging Zegin DOO Skopje to sell the acquired share of 25% in PHO Gradski Apteki- Skopje in a time period of one year in order to reestablish the situation on the market that existed prior to the concentration.

With a verdict of the Administrative Court made on January 21, 2009, the procedure upon the filed complaint from Zegin DOO Skopje was completed and the same decision was confirmed i.e. Zegin DOO Skopje should sell the acquired share of 25% in PHO Gradski Apteki- Skopje in one year in order to reestablish the situation on the market that existed prior to the concentration and should be banned from exercising the managing i.e. voting rights arising from the acquired share, starting from the day on which the decision becomes final. Unfortunately, the sale of shares did not happen yet, so the disputed situation of PHO Gradski Apteki is not resolved yet and we are all witnesses of the inert position of the competent bodies, who could assist in resolving the situation.

Although regular inspections are being performed and the salaries of the employees are paid, the problem is still far from being resolved. It is necessary to restart the work of this organization and this is possible only if the pharmacy is supplied with the necessary medicines and the other resources.

However, having in mind the relations between the two participants, it can be concluded that none of them is interested in saving the PHO Gradski Apteki.

The Helsinki Committee calls the Government and the competent bodies to undertake the necessary measures in order to prevent the collapse of PHO Gradski Apteki, while it is still possible and to preserve the jobs of the employees.

——————————————————————————–

[1] “If the employer terminates the employment contract, he shall be obligated to state the reasons for the termination, defined by law, collective agreement and act of the employer and shall justify the reasons for termination “.

[2] “(1) The termination of the employment contract shall be handed to the employee whose employment contract is subject to termination. (2) The employer shall be obligated to hand over the termination of the employment contract in person to the employee, by rule on the premises of the employer, i.e. the address of residence i.e. domicile of the employee.”

[3] “In case of termination of the employment contract due to business reasons, the employer shall be obligated to check whether it is possible to employ the employee under changed circumstances or to reassign him to other jobs, i.e. to provide further training or re-training. If this possibility exists, the employer shall offer to the employee amended employment contract “.

[4] Article 5 of the Law on amendments and supplements to the Law on Ombudsman, Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, No. 114 as of 14.09.2009

[5] Article 3 of the Law on amendments and supplements to the Law on Ombudsman, Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, No. 114 as of 14.09.2009

[6] Social Development Notes. Participatory Approaches to Country Assistance Strategies: Lessons from Africa

[7] General Manager of ADOR QBE and the Managing Board.

[8] Verdict P. No. 3711/02 registered as old number, i.e. RO. No. 129/07 as new number, as of 28.02.2007

[9] Verdict RSZ. No. 1994/07 as of 03.01.2008

[10] Decision PPNI. No. 446/08 as of 21.08.2008

[11] Decision ROZ. No. 1629/08 as of 21.10.2008

[12] Verdict of Basic Court Ids. Pk. No.100/09 as of 19.06.2009

[13] Verdict of Appellate Court ROZ. No.1195/09 as of 09.07.2009

[14] Letters sent on 13.04.2009, 30.06.2009 and 16.09.2009

[15] Although the pardoning procedure is urgent (Article 4)

[16] Article 6

The request for pardoning may be resubmitted three months after the day when a decision was made upon the previous request, in case of prison sentence or juvenile prison up to one year; after the expiration of six months, when the pronounced sentence is from one to three year; in case of prison sentence of more than three years after the expiration of one year.

[17] Request DN. No.19-08-415/02 as of 23.09.2002

[18] Article 50 “The users of construction land on the grounds of former ownership of the land, may transform the right to use into a right to ownership of construction land, by submitting a request of the user, and upon this request the Ministry of Transport and Communications makes a decision on transformation of this right.

The users on the ground of former ownership, in terms of paragraph 1 of this Article, are the persons that were owners of the land on the day when the land was nationalized…“

[19] Articles 3 and 4

[20] Letter JP No. 03-117/07 as of 14.03.2007