Europe has given a cautious thumbs-up to Macedonia’s much-needed judicial reforms.

In its latest Macedonia progress report, published on November 8, Brussels praised a proposed package of changes but criticised the slow pace in which they were being put into effect.

The report said that overall the constitutional and legal framework for independent and efficient judiciary is in place but that most of the reforms have not yet entered into force. However, the report read, “The judicial system shows the same serious shortcomings as in previous years affecting both its independence and efficiency.”

This is not news to domestic experts, most of whom say judicial reforms - a key area of concern for Europe - are being carried out slowly and without enthusiasm.

Some go further, claiming Nikola Gruevski’s centre-right government will go the same way as its predecessors in seeking ways to keep control of the justice system.

Brussels has demanded changes to make Macedonia’s courts more independent and efficient since granting the Balkan country candidate-member status in December 2005.

No one seriously questions that the courts are in trouble. Polls have repeatedly shown most Macedonians see their judiciary as inefficient and corrupt.

One problem is the backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases, which means procedures often last for years. Another is that politicians are widely thought to wield too much influence.

Constitutional amendments passed in 2005, and laws stemming from these changes, have gone halfway to meeting criticisms.

Methods by which judges are selected and removed have been altered and the powers in this field handed from parliament to a new authority, the Judicial Council.

Other changes have reduced the workload burden on judges and increased opportunities for the professional training of judges and prosecutors.

Gruevski’s justice minister, Mihajlo Manevski, a former member of the State Anticorruption Commission, has promised further changes. “A thorough reform must be carried out of the whole judiciary system,” Manevski told Balkan Insight.

But experts say action has not matched rhetoric. They say the new government has no real enthusiasm and is not taking up the role of a “conductor”, leading and managing the overall process.

Professor Vlado Kambovski, of the Faculty of Law at Skopje University, says the Gruevski government behaves in an anemic fashion, without much sign of a plan, as a result of which time is being lost.

“I do not see concrete projects for the reorganisation of the judiciary - and it is necessary to carry out those projects so the courts can prepare for reorganisation,” he told Balkan Insight.

“At this rate implementation [of changes] will not start until as late as next year, which is inadmissible.”

Kambovski pointed to the lack of financial support for the reforms as one indication of the lack of true enthusiasm.

“I don’t see any new budget constructions or large-scale investments being put into the judiciary,” he went on, “and reforms to the judiciary are expensive.”

Sasa Gjorgjevic, an expert from Kumanovo court, says the conditions in which the courts sit are lamentable.

Electricity is frequently cut off owing to non-payment of bills and courts “often do not have the basic material conditions for work, such as paper, cartridges and envelopes.
“As a result of debts to the Post Office, decisions and invitations are not posted to a large number of courts.”

Those familiar with the situation predict that Macedonia’s creaking justice system will continue to function in the old rickety fashion.

Dane Iliev, president of the Supreme Court, is sceptical about the possibility of change, saying the authorities only feign reforms.

“Everything is done to make it look like a reform but decisions always circumnavigate any true reform,” he said.

Iliev is openly pessimistic about the government’s stated ambition to create “a judiciary independent of politics”, saying, “I do not believe the judiciary can escape political influence.”

Many see the abrupt dismissal of the former public prosecutor, Aleksandar Prcevski, two years before his mandate ended, as a sign that the government still harbours ambitions to control the judiciary by appointing its own figures to key posts and removing “other people’s”.

Under the 2005 constitutional changes, decisions to dismiss prosecutors can only be taken by a newly formed independent body, the Council of Public Prosecutors.

But the council still hasn't been set up, owing to the delays in the adoption of certain laws. They were supposed to have been adopted in September. However, after the government changed in July, this did not occur. Instead, the new government sacked Prcevski, using the old laws to do so and citing alleged “unprofessional work and poor results”.

Although Prcevski was frequently criticised about outstanding crime and corruption cases and over his open conflict with the Anticorruption Commission, many experts still say his dismissal was politically motivated and did not follow due procedures.

Nikola Tupanceski, also of the Law Faculty at Skopje University, said the sacking showed the government had no intention of abandoning the traditional practice of interference in the judiciary.

“The point of the rule of law is to have a crystal clear procedure, which is respected,” he said. “If they violated the procedure with the public prosecutor, they may do the same with other things, too.”

Gjorgjevic agreed, describing the removal of Prcevski as “an attack on the institution of the public prosecutor of the Republic of Macedonia”.

Kambovski said that while the new government had not done anything differently from its predecessors, which also replaced public prosecutors on taking power, “This government was supposed to demonstrate a different approach and show readiness to accept European standards.”

Victor Ullom, chief of the OSCE Department of Rule of Law, takes more nuanced view of the dispute. He said in many countries political influence on the chief prosecutor was seen as legitimate; but this was not the case in Macedonia, which had opted for the model of an independent public prosecutor.

Ullom said he merely wanted to “encourage the government to finally decide which one [model] is most adequate”.

Not all domestic experts are equally downbeat about the current situation. Some say it is too early to make definitive assessments about the success of the judicial reforms.

Aleksandar Cvetkoski, of the NGO called AGTIS, which monitors the reform process, describes himself as “a restrained optimist, owing to the fact that this government has no other choice but to implement the reforms”.

He added, “Gruevski promised economic progress, foreign investments and new employment, and this is all impossible without an independent and efficient judiciary. If he does not succeed with this, Gruevski will lose power.”

This article first appeared in Balkan Insight, November 6 2006. Kristina Nikolovska is a contributor to Balkan Insight. Balkan Insight is BIRN`s online publication. www.birn.eu.com