Bimonthly Report (July – August 2009)
I. PUBLIC EVENTS AND VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
1.1. Interethnic Relations as Indicator
1.2. Fierce Threats to the Public Speech
1.3. Minister Manevski has a “devil-may-care” attitude
1.4. The Right to Privacy in the Media
1.5. The Decisiveness to Introduce Religious Classes at Any Cost and under Any Name brings Confusion
1.6. Massive Layoffs Hit Teachers
II. POLICE AND COURT CASES
2.1. Is any Restriction to Liberty Practiced in the Case of Avdil Metaj?
2.2. It is much too much! – the Case of Sevdail Gjureci
III. VIOLATION OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
3.1. Professional Soldiers Deprived of their Rights
3.2. The Golgotha of Citizens in the Administrative Procedures – the Case of Mirce Gorancic, Skopje
————————————————————————————–
I. PUBLIC EVENTS AND VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
1.1. Interethnic Relations as Indicator
As by a rule, whenever the current developments in the state are not headed in the right direction, one of the key indicators is the interethnic issues.
If the incidents such as the clash between the football fans “komiti” and the residents of Nerezi settlement or the problems emerging every year during the enrolment in the popular secondary schools or the fights between the students from different ethnic communities have become “business as usual” not disturbing us too much, even the selection of swimmers at Skopje’s swimming pool “Biser” on ethnic grounds by asking them to present an ID (!?) can be treated as normal. But, the separation of Romani children in special classes and schools upon the request of the parents of young Macedonians is something more and already “smells” of discrimination on ethnic grounds, even racism. The worries come from the letter that the Mayor of Kocani intends to send to the European Roma Rights Centre in Budapest, requiring from us to be co-signatories. Allegedly, 18 families were expelled from the Romani settlement on August 12, 13 and 14 and their houses were demolished. The letter, which refers to the local monitor of the Center, claims that about 76 persons are affected with these developments, of which at least 8 are young people and children under 15 years of age.
Almost everywhere Roma face much bigger problems (read injustice, violation of elementary human rights) than the rest of the population. Taking these examples as highly serious, the Helsinki Committee will conduct a fact finding mission in both cases and will present the results to the public.
1.2. Fierce Threats to the Public Speech
Journalist Branko Geroski came out in the public, saying that he received threatening SMS. This was not the first time, but this time the threats were also directed towards his children. This is why he reported the case to the police, pointing out the fact that the messages were sent from known phone numbers (from the VIP mobile operator). However, MoI have not yet issued a statement, although it seems quite easy to establish whether the users of those phone numbers were involved in sending the threats or not. Gerovski also told about the insulting words against his wife said in a show on the public broadcaster MRTV.
The columnists, Zarko Trajanovski and Irena Cvetkovic, also informed about similar threats on their account. The only difference is that in their cases the bullies used the Internet technology (blogs, web sites, comments on their columns…).
The threats directed towards that critical observers are not something new. But, now they make a step forward than the existing practice of just mentioning names (or even members of the same family, who are either in the same profession or their only fault is the close relation with those whose writings are not favored by someone) which was only a way to send a message. The threats are now explicit (“Macedonia does not forget, VMRO does not forgive. The betrayal of Macedonia is paid with blood, and you betrayed Macedonia.” “Justice for her, either pistol or knife, it’s her choice,” “This lady should be burnt at stake in public” – these are some of the threats towards Irena Cvetkovic).
The three authors mentioned above are well known of their clear critical viewpoints against the current authorities expressed in civilized and eloquent manner. It is not difficult to assume that the purpose of these threats is to make these “inconvenient” authors silent. It is not necessary to waste words to explain that these attempts are futile, even in more powerful authoritarian regimes than ours. But it is true that the threats did not always remain verbal, so they should be taken seriously and the perpetrators should be identified and brought to justice. The stalled “investigations”, defocusing the public and the other well known “solutions” will not bring anything good to this country – these cases, as by default, usually find their place in the reports of the international organizations and institutions working in this field.
1.3. Minister Manevski has a “devil-may-care” attitude
At the end of June, the Helsinki Committee upon a document, whose authenticity was checked, and the personal statement of the Justice Minister, Mihajlo Manevski, that he was receiving both salary and pension for January 2009 requested him to leave the post. We believed and still believe that by transgressing the law, Manevski has lost his political credibility as a Justice Minister responsible for taking care of the rule of law as a main guarantee for protection of human rights and freedoms in the Republic of Macedonia. Even in a state as ours, there should be minimum ethical standards in the politics that should be observed.
Additional arguments for Manevski’s waning credibility to perform this function are the series of public blunders showing that he has no sense of building politics-free judiciary, which is the main objective of the judicial reforms implemented by the ministry run by him.
After several days of tug of war in the public, the governmental services and the Fund for Pension and Disability Insurance have found a Solomonic solution – they made the mistake and not the Minister. However, this is a personal duty and responsibility of the citizen Manevski to respect the law, which forbids taking both pension and salary at the same time. While the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Anticorruption Commission still work on gathering additional evidence on this scandal (after the necessary documentation is compiled it will be examined whether he claims any responsibility for receiving salary and pension for four months, which is against the law), the Minister was involved in another 20-year old scandal – allegations of the usurped land next to his house in the Municipality of Butel!
The daily newspaper “Vest” reads: “The greatest reform in the judiciary would be to replace the Minister of Justice, Mihajlo Manevski, western diplomats were persuading Prime Minister Gruevski, warning him that the worst assessments in the European Commission’s report on Macedonia would be about the situation in the juridical system.” In spite of everything, Manevski still has a “devil-may-care” attitude. This is why the laws adopted by the Parliament and the judiciary reforms are as they are – a spitting image of the Justice Minister.
1.4. The Right to Privacy in the Media
In the past few months, the media (both printed and electronic) reported on several cases related to the right to privacy from different aspects. One of the stories was the filming of a young girl requiring money for surgery, while the other one was the boy holding gun at the celebration of the Army’s Day.
The common denominator of the reports was the use of children for making “sensationalistic news”, without taking into consideration the child’s right.
Media can do a lot for children, but they should do this very carefully, not forgetting that the identity of the child should not be disclosed, the full name and surname should not be revealed and photos and films from the child should not be presented in order to protect the children from arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy and family life[1].
Although the Republic of Macedonia has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, obviously it is not fully observed, particularly Article 3, which reads: “In all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.
The Code of Journalists of Macedonia says: “The journalist must not interview or photograph children under 16 years of age without consent from the parents or legal guardians, unless that is in accordance to the children rights” and “the journalists shall not consciously create or process information that jeopardize the human rights and freedoms”.
However, in case of violation of these rights by the journalists, they are hardly ever or never subject to sanctions. The Broadcasting Law stipulates that “radio and television programs shall be based on the principle of fostering and development of humane and ethical values of human beings and protection of the privacy and dignity of each person”, but does not foresee sanctions for those violating this principle.
Unfortunately, the unethical and unprofessional journalistic reporting that deeply interferes with the privacy and dignity of the person affects all citizens.
In the past few months, we have witnessed the news reports from tragic accidents accompanied with images from the crime scene that were broadcast several times. They included images of the bodies of deceased, culminating with the shots of the police officers collecting the remains of the burnt bodies of the victims with a shovel.
The Helsinki Committee reminds that the right to privacy is continuously violated by showing the recordings from the detention of suspects, inappropriate reporting in the case of journalist Tanevski and other similar cases.
However, the media are not the only one violating the right to privacy and protection of personal dignity, but the entire system created to protect these rights is not functioning.
The students from the Faculty of Architecture, members of the association “Archibrigade” who recently tried to express their view on the construction of a church on Skopje’s main square also addressed the Helsinki Committee.
Personally affected when one TV station showed their personal data, including their names and mobile phones in the news story they contacted the Directorate for Personal Data Protection asking for protection.
After examining the case, the Directorate issued a decision accepting the complaint of the applicants and confirming that their right to protection of personal data was violated by the TV station, which disclosed their personal details without authorization. Furthermore, the Directorate says that in the news story the TV station “has directly identified the applicants, thus violating Article 5[2] of the Law on Personal Data Protection”.
But, the decision does not provide any measures that will be taken by the Directorate to sanction the violation. The Law on Personal Data Protection, particularly the latest amendments, provides broad authorizations to the Directorate in performing its control function. The Directorate has the competence of issuing a ban on the further personal data processing[3], performing inspection and initiating misdemeanor procedure, pronouncing sentences, giving orders to remove the violation, etc. but in this case the Directorate has only established the violation?!
In the above mentioned cases and those similar to them, it is evident that there is no response from the Broadcasting Council, which also has competences in this area, while the Association of Journalists is passive, although it has recently reacted on the news reports on the accident.
Although we welcome the latest media reports where the faces of the detained persons were darkened, the Committee reminds that this step should be taken in all cases affecting the privacy and the dignity of a person.
The Helsinki Committee calls all entities that have certain personal data at their disposal to act in a professional manner and to protect the right to privacy and the dignity of a person, and appeals to the competent bodies to be more efficient in performing their competences in order to raise the level of protection of human rights in our society.
1.5. The Decisiveness to Introduce Religious Classes at Any Cost and under Any Name brings Confusion
Regarding the announcements for introduction of new optional subject in the elementary education instead of the religious classes, the Helsinki Committee of Human Rights in the last monthly report has addressed with a letter the Bureau for Education Development.
The reply of the Bureau for Education Development is just another confirmation that the Ministry of Education and Science has no real strategy for developing the education, particularly about this project. We came to this conclusion as a result of their inability to deal with and accept the different opinions, particularly the confusion that emerged in the education as a result of the decisiveness to introduce the religious classes at any cost and under any name.
The reply further states that by keeping only the subject Introduction to Religions, the concept of providing optional subjects was lost, because at least two subjects should be offered to the students in order to opt for one of them in accordance with their interests and preferences and with the consent of the parents; several discussions on this topic were organized in few municipalities, bringing together all primary schools in the Republic of Macedonia, representatives of the parents, school pedagogues and psychologists and other interested citizens where it was realized that the primary education should provide religious and ethical contents to the students; the profile of the teaching staff realizing these classes was identified and the teachers will be recruited through an open competition, after which they will undergo special training for planning and realizing the classes.
Amazingly, but the Bureau for Education Development believes that the concept of giving choice will be observed by introducing two optional subjects from the same field, where practically the children with consent of the parents will not be able to show interest in something different than the given options – religion under two different names. And again they do not explain the concept whether this will be one single subject summarizing the five topics or it would be Ethics of Religions, but separately for each of them?!
Furthermore, in which municipalities and when they have organized these discussions? Have they also invited the experts and the representatives of the civil society organizations? We do not know the answer, but as we have not heard of such discussions, we doubt whether they have really taken place.
Even more surprisingly, as a result of the general lack of preparedness of the MoES, relevant representatives of the faith communities told the printed media that either the Ethics of Religions would be introduced properly, taught by theologists or it should not start at all. Moreover, they will not retreat from the request the subject to be taught by theologists, to be educated this year and the Ethics of Religions to be introduced afterwards. The statement from the Minister of Education followed soon after, saying that the new optional subject would not be introduced this school year in the primary schools. An additional period of one year was needed for the experts to make the necessary amendments to the law, so that the religious classes can enter the schools without the accompanying controversy. This period should be also used for finding out solution on who will teach this subject.
The question is: how is it possible to define the profile of the teaching staff and then not to be able to have solution for this problem? Or maybe the influence of the religious communities is too strong in terms of making decisions on this issue, so the entire process is stopped until the competent and incompetent persons agree on the disputes. Let us not forget that Law on Primary Education, starting with Article 77 provides whole chapter on Teachers, Associates and Educators, regulating in details the issue on recruitment and employment in primary schools.
The inability, to understand this delay of the project as final dealing with the problem by developing a comprehensive and realistic strategy, is also a result of the promotion of religious classes through the long TV commercial, contrary to the Decision of the Constitutional Court. This opens the question on the costs incurred so far. Whether the temporary implementation of religious classes, the costs for open competitions, commercials and all other accompanying activities, which obviously required money from the budget, will be again against the interests of the children? Only because the unnecessary steps have been taken without the necessary analyses…
1.6. Massive Layoffs hit Teachers
The school year started, but instead of joyful moments, it was marred by numerous scandals. First, the daily media reported the scandal with opening additional classes in the secondary medical schools “Pance Karagjozov” and the bargaining between the parents and the Ministry of Education and Science.
But everyone is even more concerned with the massive layoffs of teaching staff in the primary and secondary schools throughout the country. The beginning of the school year was marked with information on the termination of employment as their contracts were not transformed. Numerous teachers employed for a definite period of time complained that their employment was terminated and other persons were employed, who have not even taken the professional exam. They claimed that in the background of the layoffs lies the politics. There were many speculations about the exact number of teachers that were laid off.
The problems peaked with the physical attack in the “Prparimi” school in Gostivar.
The Helsinki Committee continuously monitors the developments in education and has pointed out the negative consequences as a result of the interference of political parties in the education process.
The Law on Labor Relations is decisive on this issue, stipulating transformation of employment based on a contract for definite period of time into a contract for indefinite period of time, if the employee continues to work after the 5-year period expires, as prescribed by Law. But obviously this formulation is used and abused by the competent bodies, which have handed out the termination notices before the legal deadline.
The media also reported about the teachers working on the basis of service agreements. Although, the Committee mentioned that the employment regulated with these service agreements[4] is not in compliance with the Labor Act, evidently this practice is still in use.
Another problem in the education process is the evident pressure from the political parties. For a long time, the evaluation of quality and expertise of teachers is missing and more emphasis is placed on other “qualifications” of the candidates, not taking seriously the consequences that may arise as a result of the incompetence of the teaching staff.
The most confusing in the entire process is the fact that the Ministry of Education and Science is literally being exempted, putting the blame on the local authorities, and not taking into account its own legal competences[5].
On the other hand, it is not clear whether the local authorities are those playing with the legal provisions or they have adopted their decisions in cooperation with the central authorities – MoES, as defined by the Law on Local Self-Government[6].
The chaos in education, where the teachers want someone to protect their rights and the law to be observed is getting deeper with the passivity of the trade union, SONK, and the competent institutions.
The Helsinki Committee is concerned by the massive layoffs in almost all schools, which indicates partisation in the education process and the cases when the competent bodies do not implement the legal provisions in practice, which brings into question the rights of teachers.
The Committee calls the competent institutions to undertake all necessary measures within their scope and to resolve the problem, i.e. to focus on raising the quality of education services by employing professional staff as the students would benefit the most.
II. POLICE AND COURT CASES
2.1. Is any Restriction to Liberty Practiced in the Case of Avdil Metaj?
The right to liberty is any basic right or freedom to which every human being is entitled in a democratic society and in whose exercise no one has the right to arbitrarily take away the liberty. Although the right to liberty is not an absolute right, the person may be deprived of liberty only on legal grounds, which should comply with the European standards. Is this so in the case of Avdil Metaj?
Avdil Metaj, is a Macedonian citizen, who works and lives in the Kingdom of Sweden since 1990. On July 16, 2007 he arrived in Macedonia to visit his close family. At the entrance in the country he was arrested by the police officers at the border crossing in order to participate in a police lineup under suspicion of attempting murder on June 9 in Skopje.
The recognition process started on the same day, July 16, 2007 at 11:30 in the police station in the presence of authorized person and the victim and ended later that day at 14:45. According to the recognition report, which is integral part of the criminal case No. 2593/09 of the Basic Court Skopje I Skopje, the victim did not recognize any of the persons in the police lineup, including Avdil Metaj, although it was believed that these people were shooting at the victim.
Avdil Metaj was released soon afterwards and without any restrictions he moved around and outside of the country. After his vacation was over he went back to Sweden where he continued to live and work.
On July 2, 2009, when entering Macedonia Mr. Metaj was again deprived of his liberty for the same crime, but now he was detained for 30 days based on the Decision XII No. 1467/07 of the investigative judge as of September 13, 2007.
The casual relation between the deprivation of liberty on July 16, 2007 and the detention on July 2, 2009 is the same, concerning the same crime, for which a recognition process was already undertaken and it was established that Avdil Metaj is not a perpetrator. However, Avdil Metaj is still in detention!
Taking into consideration the circumstances that jeopardize Avdil Metaj’s freedom, the Helsinki Committee asks whether the detention in this case is grounded and whether this is deemed as really necessary and whether the circumstances are such that it is not possible to offer any other guarantee for his freedom.
The Helsinki Committee believes that in this case no distinction is made between the already established facts and the undertaken activities, the importance of the right to liberty and the pronounced measure of detention. It also calls the Macedonian authorities to act instantly and without any further delay to resolve this case, having in mind that it affects the “right to liberty”.
The Helsinki Committee was notified by the client that finally the Prosecutor’s Office has realized that there was no room for prosecution in this case and there was no need for detention and this is why it has withdrawn the indictment against Metaj. The Court has confirmed this with a decision i.e. rejected the indictment.
This case has once again confirmed the absurdness and irrelevance of detention, which is pronounced by the courts too often and arbitrarily, without any legal explanation and justification. However, the financial consequences are paid by the citizens of this state!
The Helsinki Committee advised the client to start a procedure for compensation of damages incurred during the detention period, which was obviously ungrounded and unnecessary.
2.2. It is much too much! – the case of Sevdail Gjureci
On July 3, 2007, Sevdail Gjureci was verbally and physically attacked by a person employed in the Ministry of Interior in the settlement of Gjorce Petrov. Upon request of the person employed in MoI, the client stopped the vehicle and the suspect identified himself as a member of the special police forces Alfa and pointed a gun. Then he started to hit him with the gun, to punch him and kick him. Later on, it was discovered that the person employed in MoI was in fact border police officer.
The medical reports show that Sevdail Gjureci has sustained head injuries, concussion, and swellings on the nose, jaw, abdomen, chests and lungs. Gjureci was released from the Clinical centre on July 5, 2007.
The factual situation implies that there are serious indications that the police officer has abused his authorizations and acted against the regulations, by identifying himself as an official person and using the official gun for maltreatment, using violence, inflicting serious injuries, jeopardizing a person by using dangerous tool during a fight or a quarrel and jeopardizing the safety of the other present persons.
The Helsinki Committee addressed the Gjorce Petrov police station, where the case was reported, as well as the Sector for Internal Control and Professional Standards. The Sector has provided an answer No. 11.3-1108/4 as of August 6, 2007 notifying us that criminal charges were pressed against the police officer on grounds of “Violence” according to Article 386 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Macedonia and it was proposed to the Dismissal Commission to start a procedure for establishing the responsibility.
After receiving this answer in 2007, the Committee reported this case as a positive example when the Ministry of Interior acted instantly and undertook measures against the perpetrator.
Unfortunately, two years later the case is stalled. The public prosecutor has neither initiated a criminal procedure, nor has rejected the criminal charges.
Upon the request of the Helsinki Committee to get more information on the procedure, the Public Prosecutor’s Office sent a letter on July 28, 2009 saying that they have requested investigation to be opened on September 5, 2007, while on March 18, 2008 a proposal was given to extend the investigation.
Having in mind that two years have passed since the request for opening an investigation, the Helsinki Committee publicly calls the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the court to act more efficiently in this case. We believe that the period of two years is too much and this is violation of the rights of the client.
III. VIOLATION OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
3.2. Professional Soldiers Deprived of their Rights
In the past period the Helsinki Committee was informed about the situation of professional soldiers in the Macedonian Army, as a result of the regulation of their employment as stipulated by the Army Service Regulation Law.
Pursuant to this Law[7] the professional soldiers are employed in the Macedonian Army, ARM, by signing an Employment Contract with the Defense Ministry for a period of three years, which depending on the achieved results may be extended for additional three times. This provision is limiting in advance the employment of professional soldiers to only 12 years regardless of the achievements and professional readiness.
Undoubtedly, this solution is directly against the Law on Labor Relations, according to which an Employment Contract may be signed for a definite period of time continuously or discontinuously for a period of five years, but if the employee continues to work after this time, the employment is transformed into employment for indefinite time, which is contrary to the case when after 12 years of employment for definite period of time, the employment of the soldiers is terminated.
Unfortunately, this is not the only limitation to the employment of professional soldiers. According to the Army Service Regulation Law[8] if they have signed an employment agreement, they will continue to work until this agreement expires with a possibility to be extended until they reach 38 years of age, after which the employment is terminated.
This regulation obviously puts the professional soldiers into disadvantaged position compared with the other employees, which is defined as age-based discrimination.
It is not necessary to emphasize that any direct or indirect discrimination at work on any grounds (including the age) is explicitly forbidden by the Law on Labor Relations, which is founded on Article 14 and Protocol 12 of the European Convention of Human Rights as well as all basic documents on human rights.
However, having in mind the characteristics of the job position – professional soldier with service in the Army, this type of discrimination may be accepted as justified as it is covered with the exception, defined in accordance with the special requirements, conditions and objectives of certain professions. These exceptions are applied in the Law on Labor Relations[9] and the Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation of the International Labor Organization[10] and especially the Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation[11].
However, what is unacceptable is the way in which the employment of professional soldiers is regulated after they reach 38 years of age or even more astonishing is after they serve 12 years even if they are younger than 38?! when they are left jobless.
We remind that according to the Constitution, the Republic of Macedonia is a social state and all citizens have a right to social security and social insurance in accordance with the principle of social justice. In case of the permissible discrimination of Army’s employees due to the special requirements of the service, which concerns the security of the state and all its citizens, we believe that the least the state can do for them is to fulfill the constitutional responsibility and provide for the social status of professional soldiers.
Even more, as the Law on Labor Relations stipulates that the employer is obliged to provide professional training, reengineering and further education in order to be able to work for the same or different employer prior to the termination of the agreement.
This is why, the Helsinki Committee points out that it is necessary to amend urgently the Army Service Regulation Law and to resolve the status of professional soldiers through retraining and deployment on other job positions after the termination of their employment as professional soldiers.
3.3. The Golgotha of Citizens in the Administrative Procedures – the case of Mirce Gorancic, Skopje
In the previous monthly report, the Helsinki Committee pointed out a case of yearlong correspondence between the state bodies and a victim of the administration that disrespected the legal provisions in the administrative procedure, adding that the next reports will provide an in-depth picture of the situation.
Pursuant to Article 1 of the Law on General Administrative Procedures, “the administrative units and other public units shall act pursuant to this Law in the administrative procedures, directly implementing the regulations and adopting decisions on the rights, obligations and legal interests of the individuals, legal entities or other parties (hereinafter: parties)”.
Article 15, paragraph 1 of the same law says “the party shall have the right to lodge an appeal against a first instance decision. The same right is stipulated by Article 15[12] of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia.
Mr. Mirce Gorancic (hereinafter: applicant) from Skopje has informed us that on July 11, 2008 he has filed an appeal in the Employment Agency of the Republic of Macedonia – Employment Centre of the City of Skopje, which can be verified by the archive number of the complaint. Although nine months have passed, he never received a feedback.
On March 31, 2009 the Helsinki Committee sent a letter to the Employment Centre of the City of Skopje requesting information on whether the allegations of the applicant were correct and in case they were true to give the reasons why the state body has not brought a decision upon the lodged appeal, having in mind Article 247, paragraph 1[13] of the Law on General Administrative Procedure (stipulating a time period of two months for bringing a decision upon an appeal).
On May 18, 2009, we received a reply and many information that we have never requested such as the fact that the applicant was deleted from the regular registry of unemployed persons as he failed to apply in due time. In addition, the ban on registration would expire on May 31, 2009 and starting from June 1, 2009 he would regain the right to register in the registry of the Employment Centre of the City of Skopje as an unemployed person.
However, the Helsinki Committee did not receive the relevant information on what happened with the appeal. This is why we sent another letter on June 4, 2009 to the head of the relevant sector in the Center, requesting information on whether a decision was brought upon the lodged appeal[14] or not. If the decision was brought, why the client was not informed and did not receive the decision.
On July 7, 2009 the Center has notified us that they did not have a copy of the lodged appeal and asked the Committee to forward any copy of the decision and the appeal so they can proceed with the case.
Perplexed with the received answers, the Helsinki Committee asks the competent officials in the Employment Centre in Skopje to perform ex officio supervision in order to locate the appeal, which obviously was received by the institution, as there is an archive number with the seal of the institution and cannot be lost on the premises of the Centre as well as to penalize the person that lost the appeal.
We also appeal to the State administration inspection to perform supervision according to Article 2, 9 and 11 of the Law on Administrative Inspection and to monitor the implementation of legal provisions and based on the findings to undertake legal measures, to press criminal charges, to request initiation of misdemeanor procedure or disciplinary procedure against the officials or employees.
——————————————————————————–
[1] Article 16 – Convention on the Rights of the Child
[2] Article 5, Law on Personal Data Protection
Personal data shall be: – processed pursuant to the law; – collected for concrete, clear and legally determined purposes and processed pursuant to those purposes. Further data processing for historic, scientific or statistical research shall not be considered as not being in compliance with the primary purposes for which the data have been collected, provided that the appropriate protection measures have been undertaken in accordance with the law; – appropriate, relevant and not too comprehensive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and processed; – accurate , complete and updated, whereby the inaccurate or incomplete data shall be deleted or corrected, taking into account the purposes for which they have been collected or processed… The controller shall be responsible for the quality of the personal data in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.
[3] Article 41, Law on Personal Data Protection
[4] Law on Obligatory Relations, Article 619
[5] Law on Organization and Work of the State Administration Bodies, Article 23
“(1) The Ministry of Education and Science performs the works related to:
– education of all types and levels;
– organization, financing, development and promotion of education and science;
– supervision in the area of its competences…..
[6] Law on Local Self-Government, Article 22, paragraph 1, item 8 “Education – establishment, finance and administration of primary and secondary schools in cooperation with the central authorities…”
[7] Article 35, Army Service Regulation Law
The professional soldiers with service in the Army sign an employment contract with the Ministry of Defense. The employment contract with the professional soldiers is signed with duration of three years.
Depending on the achieved results and the needs of the service, the employment contract with the professional soldiers may be extended for three times, at most.
[8] Article 259 а, Army Service Regulation Law, Official Gazette, No. 134 as of 06.011.2007
[9] Article 8, Exceptions from banning the discrimination from the Law on Labor Relations
[10] C111 Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation as of 1958
[11] Directive 2000/78/ЕC as of November 27, 2000
[12] Article 15 – the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia
The right to appeal against individual legal acts issued in a first instance proceedings by a court, administrative body, organization or other institution carrying out public mandates is guaranteed.
[13] Time period for bringing a decision upon an appeal – Article 247
A decision upon an appeal has to be brought and submitted to the party as soon as possible, not later than two months from the day the appeal has been lodged, unless the time period is otherwise determined.
[14] Accepted on July 11, 2008, as seen on the archive number 03-1811/2001