Introduction

• Author: Biljana Kotevska
• Pages: 5-8

5

1 Introduction

1.1 Basic structure of the national legal system

The national legal system of the Republic of North Macedonia,1 one of the successors of

the Yugoslav legal system, is a continental, civil-law system in a unitary semi-

parliamentarian republic. According to the Constitution, there are three branches of

government in plac e: the legislature (the Assembly,2 hereinafter the Parliament), the

executive (the Government3 and the President),4 and the judiciary (the regular courts, the

constitutional court and the prosecutors).5 The country has a decentralised local self-

government consisting of 81 local self -government units – 80 municipalities and the City

of Skopje.6

The court system is based on a strict hierarchy, with 27 first instan ce courts, four second

instance courts ( courts of appeal) and one S upreme Court. The competence for

administrative cases lies with the administrative Court of First Instance and the Higher

Administrative Court (the Court of Second Instance, Court of Appeal). In addition, there is

the Constitutional Court, tasked with deciding on the constitutionality of laws and bylaws.7

Courts at all levels and instances have some competences to decide on anti-discrimination

cases. In addition, the Ombudsperson and the equality body (the Commission for

Prevention and Protection against Discrimination (formerly Commission for Protection

against Discrimination)) – two national human rights institutions with an equality mandate

including gender issues – can also d ecide on discrimination cases submitted to them. The

latter8 has competences in both the public and the private sphere, whereas the former

operates in the public sphere only. The most important part of the executive government

with regard to gender equality law is the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. The

legislature – the Parliament – has a working body: the Commission on the Rights of Women

and Men. Any text dealing with g ender equality has to be discussed and ap proved by this

body, alongside the general commission on laws.

1 Please note that the name ‘Republic of North Macedonia’ entered into force on мо February нлмф and is

used herein accordingly. The name is a result of the Prespa Agreement – a bilateral agreement ending the

two decades long ‘name dispute’ between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia – a subject recognised in

international law and by the European Union under the reference ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia’.

2 In Macedonian ‘   ’ and after the Prespa Agreement ‘ 

  ’.

3 In Macedonian ‘   ’ and after the Prespa Agreement ‘  

 ’.

4 In Macedonian ‘   ’ and after the Prespa Agreement ‘ 

  ’.

5 Note that the wire-tapping affair has cast doubt on whether there is de facto separation of powers and rule

of law in the country in general. On this, see: Kotevska, B. (2017) Country report. Non-discrimination – FYR

Macedonia, European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, available at:

www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/4460-fyr-macedonia-country-report-non-discrimination-2017-pdf-1-79-mb.

6 Law on Territorial Organisation of Local Self-government, 2004, Article 16. Full title: Republic of North

Macedonia, Law on Territorial Organisation of Local Self-government (  

   ), Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia, Nos. 55/2004,

12/2005, 98/2008, 149-2014; Constitutional Court Decision: U.no. 40/2005 (26 October 2005).

7 Note, however, that this mechanism has not proved to be effective. Namely, the Constitutional Court has

either rejected or not found discrimination in all but one case since 1991. The dominant reason for the court

to reject a claim were legal technicalities, followed by the determination of the Constitutional Court not to

act as a supervisory third-level court, and finally, the failure of the petitioner to present sufficient evidence.

The court does not shift the burden of proof either, i.e. the burden of proof still lies with the claimant. In

2017 the Constitutional Court accepted only two cases on discrimination on the basis of personal or social

status (according to Article 3 of the Law on the Prevention of and Protection from Discrimination). In both

cases the court recognised that there had been discrimination. www.akademik.mk/ustavniot-sud-

sopstvenitsite-na-vikend-kukite-vo-mavrovo-so-protivustavni-obvrski-i-tseni-na-uslugi-za-chistene-na-

sneg/.

8 However, please note that, while the former Commission for Protection against Discrimination ceased to

exist as of August 2019, the new body (the Commission for Prevention and Protection against

Discrimination), has not yet been established. See section 11.7 of this report.