Skopje, 11 March 2025 (MIA) – The no-confidence motion against the five Judicial Council members, elected in Parliament, is unlawful. Not only is it unlawful, but it is a precedent in the parliamentary democracy of the Republic of North Macedonia to date. For more than 30 years, the Parliament has never once submitted a no-confidence motion against a Judicial Council member, Tanja Chacharova-Ilievska, one of the five Judicial Council members, said Tuesday.  

Commenting on Tuesday's Parliament session, whose agenda includes the no-confidence motions against the five Judicial Council members, Chacharova-Ilievska said she will not attend it, pointing out that a no-confidence motion against a Judicial Council member is unlawful, and it is an unconstitutional act.

"My position is, and I claim that I am right, that a no-confidence motion against a Judicial Council member is unlawful, and an unconstitutional act. I see that the no-confidence motion and those who submitted it refer to, and we constantly hear this in the media, their constitutionally guaranteed right to submit such motion, in the sense of Article 72 of the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia. However, the provision of Article 68, paragraph 1, line 15, has a different constitutional solution. It states that a no-confidence motion can be submitted against any public office holder who is accountable to the Parliament. As for Judicial Council members, in accordance with the Constitution and the Law on the Judicial Council, which is a "lex specialis" and to which the Constitution refers in relation to crucial issues relating to the Judicial Council, namely the Judicial Council's composition, the mandate of Judicial Council members, the Judicial Council's competencies, the requirements and procedure for election and dismissal of Judicial Council members, the requirements and procedure for determining the responsibility of Judicial Council members, are issues that, in accordance with the Constitution, are more specifically stated and regulated by the Law on the Judicial Council," Chacharova-Ilievska said after Tuesday's session of the Judicial Council.

MPs, she added, do not have the constitutional right to such an act, because according to her, there are provisions in the Constitution in Articles 104 and 105 made by amendments 28 and 29 where key issues relating to the Judicial Council are precisely regulated.

She pointed out that the no-confidence motion submitted only against the five Judicial Council members, has not only violated one of the fundamental values ​​of the constitutional order, the separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial powers, but it has also violated the basic principle of equality of members of the Judicial Council.  

"The Law on the Judicial Council does not distinguish between its members depending on whether they are elected from the ranks of the judges or elected in Parliament. Hence, this discriminates between members of the Judicial Council, which is unacceptable. MPs, who are representatives of the legislative branch, should also respect the Constitution, laws and international agreements, which are ratified by the Parliament, and act in accordance with them," said Chacharova-Ilievska. 

Parliament is holding its 40th session, whose agenda includes the five no-confidence motions against the Judicial Council members elected in Parliament – Vesna Dameva, Pavlina Crvenkosvska, Miljazim Mustafa, Tanja Chacharova-Ilievska and Selim Ademi. The initiative, filed on February 7, was backed by 67 ruling MPs.

Photo: MIA