Monthly Report (April 2009)

1. PUBLIC EVENTS AND VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

1.1. Government for EVERYTHING…

1.2. The judiciary failed (again) the independence test

1.3. Nepotism or?!

1.4. The benefits for second and fourth child annulled

2. VIOLATION OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS

2.1. The case of Nderim Mamuti and others, Skopje

2.2. Is there responsibility for illegal action – the case of kindergarten “Bambi” – Makedonska Kamenica

3. POLICE AND COURT CASES

3.1. Freedom of speech in the Macedonian judicial labyrinths – the case of Mence Atanasova – Toci

_____________________________________________________________________

1. PUBLIC EVENTS AND VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

1.1. Government for EVERYTHING…

In the past few months, our Government has tried to demonstrate that it was able to work in all areas and it was not holding only the executive power in the state, but also the judicial power, the most important for protection of human rights.

In the monthly reports July – August and November 2008, the Helsinki Committee has pointed out that the Justice Minister and the Government were threatening with sanctions and criminal charges, on behalf of the Judicial Council and the citizens[1].

These steps, including the claims about the black lists of judges made by the Government, the re-evaluation of certain already enforced court decisions at the governmental sessions, the recommendations given to the Judicial Council on undertaking measures against the judges, are just another proof that the real meaning of the rule of law is being ignored in our country. We cannot interpret differently the political pressure on the judiciary exerted by the executive power, which undermines the fundamental values laid in the constitution – the separation of power.

Regretfully, our Government continues along the same lines. Now, its hand extends to the legislative power, interfering in the authorizations of the Parliament. The media informed that on April 25, 2009, the Government has reviewed and prepared its opinion, positively assessing the work of the Judicial Council for 2008 and pointed out to the Judicial Council that measures should be undertaken for unifying the penal policy implemented by the courts in Macedonia and has submitted this opinion to the Parliament. This is contrary to the Law on Judicial Council[2].

The establishment of the Judicial Council as autonomous and independent body is an important part of the judiciary reforms aimed at overcoming the political influence on the judiciary. So, the Parliament is no longer responsible for electing the judges and they should be elected and discharged by the judges themselves, as a guarantee of the judicial independence. Therefore, the law stipulates that the Minister of Justice shall be a member of the Judicial Council only according to function, three members of the Council shall be elected by the Parliament and two members of the Council shall be nominated by the President of the Republic of Macedonia and elected by the Parliament. Hence, the Government has no authorizations in the judiciary. The Parliament is the only institution responsible for evaluation of the annual reports, as a control mechanism.

Unfortunately, despite the insistence on independent, efficient and impartial judiciary and the numerous legal provisions proclaiming this, the Government is taking over the judiciary and legislative power, so we wonder what would have happened if the Government did not give positive assessment for the work of the Judicial Council – what our Government would do in such case.

Even more surprising is the silence of the judges and the members of the Judicial Council as well as the silence of the MPs, because someone else is trying to do their work.

The Helsinki Committee regrets this progress in the judiciary reforms pursuant to the Strategy for Reforming the Judiciary and the Action Plan for Implementing the Strategy, particularly as this “progress” makes the exercise and protection of human rights fully dependant on the politics. We must accept that the progress does not necessarily mean wide array of instantly adopted laws, without any public debate, but consistent and successful implementation of these laws so that the citizens can be sure that they can seek justice before independent, impartial, prompt and efficient judicial bodies, as the final stage on the road to exercising their rights.

1.2. The judiciary failed (again) the independence test

On April 21, the Macedonian public was informed that Macedonia would be sued again before the International Court of Arbitration. This time the international arbitration is in Washington. Why Washington and what does Washington arbitration mean? An arbitration judge[3] explained that the international court in Washington was very important body, providing a mechanism for executing any arbitration decision against a state, if it previously lost the case. In general, these disputes involve large amounts of money, so all cases are carefully and thoroughly reviewed.

How come Macedonia has grabbed again the international attention, unfortunately with bad news? The reason for the new lawsuit against Macedonia before the international arbitration is the decision made by the Basic Court – Skopje 1, where ELEM had a court dispute against EVN Makedonija for compensation of debt. The verdict obliges EVN Makedonija to pay EUR 93 million to ELEM plus the interest rates, amounting to total of EUR 200 million, a historical debt dating back from 1995 to 2004.

On one hand, ELEM claims that the debt of ESM towards ELEM was established by a privatization consultant; while the Austrians claim that the court decision was scandalous, explaining that these were old accounts receivables from the sued customers from the time when the company was in state ownership. However, they say the court has ignored the exhibited evidence. The evidence also included the Annex to the Contract and the opinion of the Law Faculty. The Annex practically regulates the manner in which these accounts receivables should be collected and how the companies should share the money. The existence of this Annex was verified two years ago in the report of the independent auditing firm Price Water House, prepared for the Government. The auditors note that after EVN collects the accounts receivables, 50% of the money should be transferred to ELEM. An energy expert, hired by a company that assisted the Government in the privatization process, has come to the same conclusion and said for “Koha” daily newspaper “the Annex is clear, this is not a debt of EVN towards ELEM, but of the customers towards ELEM and EVN has inherited this obligation to collect the money from the customers. After the customers pay the bills, EVN should transfer 50% to ELEM.”

What in fact are the accounts receivables? These are the money owed by 400,000 sued customers, both legal and private entities, including non-existing companies and deceased persons, Austrians say.

The Austrians have also announced an appeal in the regular procedure to the Appellate Court in Skopje. EVN has also submitted a complaint to the Judicial Council of the Republic of Macedonia for re-examining the irregularities made by the judge in the court dispute.

The court decision, though not enforced yet, was highly concerning not only for the public, but also for several Ambassadors[4] who have directly monitored the case and were concerned about the procedure and the irregularities. The concerns were voiced directly to the Prime Minister in a letter pinning down all irregularities. In one occasion the European Ambassador said “the independence of judiciary is extremely important and we are concerned about the developments in EVN because of the message sent to the potential foreign investors. This is why it is of utmost importance to resolve this issue.”

The international factor clearly indicated to the Republic of Macedonia that well functioning judiciary is one of the key criteria for assessing the readiness of the country for joining the European Union. But despite these clear instructions, our state is still stubborn and deaf, although EU announced that the dispute between the Macedonian authorities and EVN would be taken into consideration in the next progress report on Macedonia.

Unfortunately, despite the direct address to the Government by the foreign ambassadors, saying that the proclaimed independent justice was not that independent after all, as stipulated in the Constitution and the laws[5], but is directly influenced by the ruling authorities, which proved to be true in this particular case.

The burden is now on the Appellate Court in Skopje, which we hope will not come under the influence of the government and will rectify the mistake. Otherwise, another dispute may be lost before the international arbitration, and the citizens will have to pay for this.

On the other hand, this sends a very bad signal to the potential investors in the Republic of Macedonia.

The Helsinki Committee believes that it is high time for the Government of the Republic of Macedonia to think seriously and to contribute for establishing an independent, transparent and fair legal system protected from the influence of the ruling authorities.

1.3. Nepotism or?!

“Constant experience shows us that every man invested with

power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go.”

de Montesquieu

De Montesquieu, famous for his articulation of the theory of separation of powers, in his work “The Spirit of the Laws” speaks of the necessity for separation of powers as a replacement of despotism and tyranny, widespread in the 17th and 18th century. Looking into the future, de Montesquieu was assured that if one man held all the powers then he could proclaim himself as almighty and the existence of “lawful state” would not be possible. This idea was supported by several philosophers.

Today, the Republic of Macedonia as a democratic state, stipulates in the Constitution[6] a separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial as a fundamental value of the constitutional order. The Constitution and the Law on Courts stipulate the independence and autonomy of courts in their work, defining the objectives and the functions[7] of the judiciary and ensuring legal security based on the rule of law. Pursuant to the law, the Judicial Council is autonomous and independent judicial body, which guarantees the authonomy and independence of the judicial power[8].

However the reforms in the judiciary, the strengthening of the independence and improving the efficiency of the judiciary are the prerequisites for accession in the European Union and our judiciary should head into direction of removing the political influence.

Although the directions are more than clear, the legal provisions are perfect, but still just a dead letter, making the real state of judiciary very concerning. The case of the judge of the Appellate Court and also member of the Criminal Council in the Appellate Court, Filimena Maneska, has stirred debates in the public and has cast doubt on the interference of politics in the judiciary.

According to the information available to the public and confirmed by the Judicial Council, the judge has fulfilled the legal requirements for retirement on April 8, so pursuant to the Law on Courts, one of the requirements for termination of her judicial office as a judge has also been met.

So, everyone expected the Judicial Council, after the received notification from the President of the Appellate Court on fulfilling the legal requirements for retirement in the case of Filimena Maneska, to make a decision on termination of her judicial office as a judge. However, the Judicial Council did not believe it was necessary to put this item on the agenda with an explanation of having other “items of higher priority” than her termination of office. If respecting the laws is not one of the priorities of the Judicial Council, then definitely our judiciary is headed in a wrong direction!

Currently the public is in dilemma – whether the delaying of the termination procedure of a judge is a birthday gift or this is just another example of the political interference in the judiciary and “succumbing” of the judicial bodies under the pressure.

The limits to which Montesquieu referred to two and half centuries ago is probably represented in this case by the Judicial Council, the body that remained deaf to the criticism on its account about its inertness in this case.

The essence of this problem is much deeper, bringing into question the legitimacy of the verdicts made by the “retired” judge and undermining the objectives of the judicial function – protection of human rights and ensuring legal security.

The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights is concerned about the state in the judiciary and sincerely hopes that this case will not be precedent applied in the future, but still believes that the priority of the Judicial Council will be the implementation of legal standards for all.

1.4. The benefits for second and fourth child annulled

On April 1, 2009, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia adopted a decision (No. 160/2008-0-1) for annulling Article 30-a paragraph 1 in the part “with a place of residence in municipalities in the Republic of Macedonia with the birth rate under 2.1 according to the data of the State Statistics Bureau of the Republic of Macedonia published two years before the current one” and paragraph 2 in the part “with permanent place of residence for at least three years in the municipalities as referred to in the paragraph 1 of this Article” from the Law on Child Protection.

The Constitutional Court made the following assessment: “Having into consideration that the above mentioned parts of paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 30-a of the Law define the right for parental allowance only for the mothers with a place of residence in the municipalities in which the birth rate is under 2.1 i.e. this right can be exercised only by one group of mothers within certain municipal boundaries or according to the territorial principle, which means that these legal provisions are not applied on the entire territory of the Republic of Macedonia thus creating inequality among the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia that are in the same position i.e. having second, third and fourth child and are not with a purpose to protect the motherhood and the children, as they do not cover all mothers and children in the state”.

The Helsinki Committee welcomes this decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia, but regrets that instead of instituting this decision on the entire territory of the Republic of Macedonia, the Government assessed that it was not able to provide conditions and give these incentives to everyone that is entitled to and has annulled the benefits for the second and fourth child. This is only a confirmation of the Helsinki Committee’s position that this was an ad hoc measure, which was doomed as it was not based on a comprehensive analysis and strategy.

Now, the Minister of Labor and Social Policy says that they were thinking about the women that got pregnant hoping that they will receive benefits for the second and fourth child and they are trying to find a way to give them the allowance in a legal manner.

The Helsinki Committee believes that it is time for the Government to finally undertake all necessary measures and to prevent any additional violation of citizens’ rights in the future and the future strategies to be grounded on detailed and expert analysis.

2. VIOLATION OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS

2.1. The case of Nderim Mamuti and others, Skopje

Nderim Mamuti, Bujamin Rushiti, Valon Zekiri, Abdula Neslihan, Basim Kasami, Arijanit BExheti, Arsim Ziberi and Lavdim Vehapi, former civil servants from Tetovo addressed the Helsinki Committee.

They informed us that on July 31, 2007 with the Decision on Employment of Civil Servant they were employed in the General Secretariat of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia as junior civil servants. Later that year on December 28 an Agreement was signed on taking over and employment of civil servants without public announcement pursuant to Article 16 of the Law on Civil Servants between the Ministry of Finance – Public Revenue Office and the General Secretariat of the Government. The Agreement stated that all these civil servants would be employed without public announcement for an indefinite period of time in the Public Revenue Office – Regional Office Bitola as junior officers on legal matters as of February 1, 2008.

On November 17, 2008 Mr. Mamuti and the others received a Decision on termination of their employment without prior notice No. 04-9279/1 as of November 10, 2008. The explanation is the same for all of them “the civil servant did not perform successfully during the probation period i.e. failed to pass the exam for junior officers, which is a requirement for full time employment.” The decision was signed by the Director of the Public Revenue Office with a legal recommendation that a complaint may be filed to the Director of the Public Revenue Office, no later than 8 days since the receipt of the decision.

Mr. Mamuti and the others filed a complaint, saying that they were never on probation, there were never given a time period for passing the exams, their work was never monitored or evaluated by the superior and the Public Revenue Office never provided a professional training, according to Article 27, paragraph 1-5 of the Public Revenue Office i.e. Article 60 of the Labor Relations Act.

The Director of the Public Revenue Office, as a first instance body that made the decision also acted as a second instance body and rejected the complaint as ungrounded and confirmed the decision for termination of the employment.

The submitted documents show that these persons have never taken a probation work, but were employed on a full time basis without public announcement, which means they had the status of employees and not the status of persons employed with a contract on practical work. On the other hand, the Law on the Public Revenue Office does not give the option to terminate the employment of an intern for failing to pass the exam.

The legislation[9] in Article 99, paragraph 2 of the Labor Relations Act stipulates that the employment shall be terminated through law enforcement when according to the provisions of law, i.e., on the basis of the effective decisions issued by the court or another organ, employees are prohibited to perform certain tasks and duties; when the employees are absent from work over six months due to a confined prison sentence or due to pronounced measures of safety, guidance or protection, lasting over six months or they have failed the probation work. Just to remind that Mr. Mamuti and the others did not had an employment contract on probation work, but employment contract for indefinite period of time.

The Helsinki Committee sent a letter to the Public Revenue Office requiring information on the reasons why the law was not observed when making the decision on termination of employment as well as on what legal grounds and why the first instance and second instance decisions were both signed by the director of the Public Revenue Office having in mind the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to file a complaint to a second instance body, which will not be the same as the one that made the decision in the previous procedure.

On April 2, 2009 the Helsinki Committee received a reply from the director of the Public Revenue Office telling us that they were surprised by the method of communication and interpretation of the decisions. The reply further states: “The Public Revenue Office is open for cooperation, but would not get into creating quasi-procedures on proving, explaining and similar things about action taken by the Office in all segments of its work.” Really surprising!!!

The clients continued to seek justice and have initiated civil procedures for annulling the decisions on termination of the employment before the Basic Court Skopje 2 – Skopje.

Without intention to interfere in the work of the judiciary, the Helsinki Committee is commenting on the received documents and sincerely hopes that the judicial bodies will realize the mistake and will reduce the doubts cast on the Macedonian judiciary.

2.2. Is there responsibility for illegal action – the case of kindergarten “Bambi” – Makedonska Kamenica

During the election campaign for the recent elections we have witnessed the violation of law with publication of announcements for employment in the state institution right after the presidential and local elections were summoned. Even the State Commission on Prevention of Corruption has reminded the national and local authorities to refrain from employment during the elections. It also pointed out the explicit provision in the Law on Prevention of Corruption.

Despite this, the Helsinki Committee received a complaint from the Director of the public municipal institution for children – kindergarten “Bambi” from Makedonska Kamenica, claiming that the Mayor of the Municipality has exerted pressure on the Director for hiring two persons after the elections were announced.

Although this is a violation of the law and having in mind that this is only one of the numerous cases of promising the employment or even employing them, this may be neglected having in mind that there was no opening for employment in the institution, nor there was a consent by the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy or the Ministry of Finance. This legally prescribed procedure for hiring persons in the public institutions for children was not even reviewed by the local authorities, so the Mayor sent these two persons to go in the kindergarten and to stay there as a kind of pressure to be hired.

Despite the request of the Director to leave the institution because the legal requirements for new employment were not met, the two persons with their stay have disrupted the normal work of the kindergarten and affected the integrity and stay of the children in the institution.

The Helsinki Committee sent a letter to the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy as a competent body for supervising the implementation of the Law on Child Protection. In the reply, the Ministry has briefly notified us that the two persons that were not authorized to stay in the kindergarten, but stayed there as a result of the pressure of the Mayor to be employed without consent from the Ministries of Labor and Social Policy and Finance, were withdrawn i.e. were no longer present in the kindergarten.

If we take into consideration the fact that this was not the first time for the Mayor to exert pressure on the Director of the same kindergarten for employment without observing the legal procedure, but during the summer holidays, and was even fined by the State Labor Inspectorate i.e. the authorized municipal inspectors in this region, again for unauthorized stay of the same persons upon the request of the Mayor, the question is whether the Ministry of Local Government has monitored the Mayor’s work and whether the term responsibility is unknown in our society, although it is included in all laws related to citizens’ rights.

We wonder what if the Director of the kindergarten did not exert pressure on all relevant ministries to resolve the problem, would it be possible for the Mayor to continue the illegal actions and the supervising bodies to remain silent, not undertaking measures for establishing the responsibility and sanctioning these actions… The latter is not a feature of the society that respects the human rights, but is definitely a feature of our society, in which not a single authority have been found responsible for the illegal proceedings, which only contributes for continuous self-willed actions that violate the legal provisions.

3. POLICE AND COURT CASES

3.1. Freedom of speech in the Macedonian judicial labyrinths – the case of Mence Atanasova – Toci

“The freedom of speech, public address, public information… is guaranteed. Free access to information and the freedom of reception and transmission of information are guaranteed”, reads the highest legal act in the country, Article 16 of the Constitution. Historically, this protection comes out of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, when the member states of the United Nations have agreed that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”[10]. Later on, the freedom of expression was incorporated in the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects this right without interference by public authority, but since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to restrictions[11].

As one may note the freedom of receiving and transmitting information is one of the basic human rights protected in all democratic states as well as in the Republic of Macedonia, in which the Universal Declaration and the European Convention of Human Rights are integral part of the internal constitutional order and thus must be respected. Having in mind that journalism as profession means receiving and transmitting information, the journalists become subjects for protection of freedom of speech and main promoters of the free political debate in a society, which is the main feature of the modern democracies.

Unfortunately, the tide of court verdicts and penalties against journalists for stated or just reported information leaves room for suspicion on whether and to what extent Macedonia respects the obligations undertaken with the ratification of the relevant international acts and how much the state observes its own legal principles?!

Another in the series of verdicts against the journalists is the latest court decision against the journalist of A1 TV, Mence Atanasova Toci. Although this is still first instance decision and the opinion of the Appellate Court after the complaint is still pending, the decision has stirred the public both as a result of the court procedure and the content of the verdict. The journalist, Toci, is convicted and punished in absentia for “defamation” after only one scheduled and held hearing before the Basic Court Skopje 1, Skopje! The court finds a justification for this trial in absentia in Article 454 paragraph 4 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, but forgets that the Article stipulates that trial in absentia is possible, but only if the presence of the defendant is not necessary. Having in mind that the criminal procedure is contradictory procedure that gives an opportunity to the defendant to exhibit evidence in own favor the decision of the court to hold trial in absentia only after one court summons for the defendant is really unclear, taking into consideration that the focus is on one of the fundamental human rights – right to defense.

This unclearness in the court decision is even higher due to the fact that according to Article 172 of the Criminal Code the “defamation” means expressing some untruth about another, but the paragraph 4 of the same Article clearly says: “if the accused proves the truth of his statement, or if he proves that he had founded reason to believe in the truthfulness of what he had stated or spread, he shall not be punished for defamation.”

In this case, the court contrary to the principles for contradictory procedure and right to defense did not make effort to provide the presence of the defendant at the main hearing and did not allow the journalist to prove the truthfulness of the claims. Ultimately, the court should establish the truth and should create conditions for this and should not easily find the defendant guilty for defamation for stating information of public interest as a journalist with the only explanation that “even if the court has heard the defendant, it would have not contributed for establishing a different factual situation” ?!

Furthermore, the Helsinki Committee thinks that is worth noting that the journalist was convicted for defamation on the grounds of information not stated by her personally, but the sources of information were clearly stated, which indicates the basic substance of the freedom of speech and that is freedom of receiving and transmitting information through the media for the benefit of the public interest. In the explanation of the verdict, the court says that it believes in the statement of the private plaintiff as this statement matched with the statement of the other witnesses, parents of the dependents situated in Bardovci hospital without wanting to hear the statements of the witnesses named by the journalist in her reports.

Although the domestic courts may not be very familiar with this, but the regulation of the restrictions of the freedom of speech and transmission of information by the media is not something new. On the contrary, the European Court of Human Rights in several cases has resolved the dilemma on the allowed restrictions of the freedom of speech in the defamation cases. So, back in 1976 in the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom the European Court defines that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. The protection of freedom of expression is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.

Furthermore, in the case of “Observer” and “Guardian” versus Great Britain, later on confirmed in many other decisions[12], the European Court points out that the restrictions on the freedom of speech must be closely defined for the media. Whilst they must not overstep the bounds set, they are nevertheless incumbent on it to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest. Not only the media have the task of imparting such information and ideas, the public also has the right to receive them. On contrary, the media would not be able to exercise their vital role of being a “watchdog” in the society.

In a different case[13], the European Court of Human Rights would come to a conclusion that receiving information via interview is one of the basic tolls of the press (media) for performing their main role.

Regretfully, the verdict against journalist Toci is just another in the series of verdicts against journalists. This situation was confirmed in the report published by the Freedom House where Macedonia was ranked as 98th in the world regarding the freedom of speech, as well as the loud comments from the European Union on the freedom of media in Macedonia. Therefore, the Helsinki Committee warns that the protection of the freedom of expression and reporting in the media is an indispensable condition in the democratic society. We call on the relevant institutions to respect the domestic legislation and the obligations undertaken for protection of human rights in order to maintain the democracy in Macedonia.

——————————————————————————–

[1] The statement of the Minister of Justice, Mihajlo Manevski: “Judges that will not resolve the back-logged cases until June next year and who will continue working in this manner will certainly be held accountable and responsible before the Judicial Council.” In addition, in paid advertisements broadcast in the electronic media the Government of the Republic of Macedonia had advised the citizens that in case of long delays of the proceedings they could file a complaint to the Supreme Court and if they considered that certain judges and prosecutors had damaged them they had the right to file criminal charges against them.

[2] “The Council shall adopt at its session the report about its performance with a two-third majority of votes of the total number of members, and it shall submit it to the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia for review and adoption. If the Parliament does not adopt the report, it shall serve as grounds for initiating a discussion before the bodies that have elected the members of the Judicial council for assessment of their work in the council “ (Article 64).

[3]Jan Dalhuisen, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and Professor at the Kings College in London

[4] USA, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France and the European Ambassador

[5] Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia – Article 98, paragraph 1 and 2

Judiciary power is exercised by courts.

Courts are autonomous and independent.

Courts judge on the basis of the Constitution and laws and international agreements ratified in accordance with the Constitution.

Law on Courts – Article 1 paragraph 1 and 2

The judicial power shall be exercised by the courts in the Republic of Macedonia.

The courts shall be autonomous and independent state authorities

[6]Article 8 The fundamental values

[7]Law on Courts – Article 3

The objectives and the functions of the judicial branch shall encompass:

– impartial application of law regardless of the position and capacity of the parties;

– promoting, protecting and respecting human rights and basic liberties;

– ensuring equality, equal opportunity, and non-discrimination on any grounds; and

– ensuring legal security based on the rule of law

[8] Article 2 Law on the Judicial Council of the Republic of Macedonia

[9] Law on Civil Servants, Labor Relations Act and Law on Public Revenue Office

[10] Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations

[11] Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe

[12] Bergens Tidende and others v Norway,

[13] Bergens Tidende and others v Norway