THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: ARBITRARY INTERPRETATION OF ITS COMPETENCIES

On the Occasion of “the Case of Dissolution of the Parliament”

Abstract

Every legal system strives to be coherent. The task of the constitutional judiciary is through control of the constitutionality and legality to ensure compliance of the entire legal system. Despite basic postulate that constitutional courts perform control of the constitutionality or legality of the general legal acts, there are differences in the scope of acts which are subject to review of constitutionality, as well as in the scope of acts which are basis for assessing compliance with them. The latest development in the Republic of Macedonia, when the Constitutional Court in the period of three months adopted two completely different decisions, raised the issue, which acts are subject to constitutional review. This paper analyses the issue of the acts, which are subject and the acts, which are basis for control of constitutionality, with special reference to the Constitutional court of the Republic of Macedonia. The constitutional frame on Constitutional court of Macedonia is not precise and detailed, but that should not give the right to the constitutional judges arbitrarily to interpret their competencies. Special attention is given to analysis of two decisions of the Constitutional court in which it arbitrary refused to decide on constitutionality of acts of the Parliament, stating that they are not general acts. One of them is Decision for Dissolution of the Parliament with postponed effect, adopted in 2016. This case is peculiar even more, because the majority in the Constitutional court changed their minds and adopted completely opposite decisions within a period of three months. The paper also analyses the arbitrary interpretations of the Republic of Macedonia on the content of the review of constitutionality.