Skopje, 30 August 2024 (MIA) – Politics with the law on languages created a legal chaos of sorts, that resulted in a political chaos, mistrust and dilemmas. The public has already seen the Venice Commission report. The Constitutional Court is on the move to reach not wise, but a sound constitutional and legal decision, based on arguments. What could be decided, I don’t know and I won’t comment, Constitutional Court President Darko Kostadinovski says.

Having been formed in 2019, the languages law case is comprised of 13 initiatives from citizens, political parties, associations, etc.

We’re aware, he says, about the public interest and the possible consequences if the Court decided to annul the legislation or to intervene in some provisions, in terms that there might be dissatisfaction.

“What’s important is to see the arguments objectively in the decision, whatever it may be, before any comment is made. The Court decision should be honored and accepted as an expression of maturity of politics and the society,” Kostadinovski tells MIA in an interview. 

It's a fact that the law is being applied, he adds, and that issues arise during its application. Therefore, starting September 1, when the Court’s new act enters into force, so as to prevent any harmful consequences for the citizens, the Constitutional Court could decide to initiate a procedure to set a deadline until which the lawmaker should remove any possible problematic provisions constitution-wide in a six-month period at least. “I cannot predict whether it might come to this,” he stresses. 

Asked whether the Court is able to make a balanced decision without affecting the political and ethnic relations in the country as well as any possible security challenges, Kostadinovski says the Constitutional Court carries the biggest burden to decide on any delicate matter. “But that’s what the Constitutional Court is for." 

Being one of the judges with the longest term in the current Constitutional Court composition, he says he has witnessed several similar situations.

“My experience has shown me two important things that are also important for my term as president. The first question is: whether to delay a decision on a certain matter in the name of sensitivity and possible social implications is justified and whether it has met the goal? No, sensitivity on such matters is not limited with a timeframe, they have been and will remain sensitive cases. Thus, it is better and healthier even for the Court to decide based solely on constitutional and legal argument. Having the experience, as president I will push for the Court to reach decisions on cases regardless of the degree of their sensitivity,” notes the Constitution Court head. 

According to him, the second relevant question both for the Court and for the important cases that are referred, and also for the legal state is: Is the society prepared and mature enough to face Court decisions that are of high public interest.

“We need to be sincere and ask ourselves – are we a stable democracy, is it necessary to make the transition toward mature democracy? I believe it is necessary and high time we made this step towards mature democracy,” stresses Kostadinovski. 

According to him, our constitutional reality is that we live in a democracy that is stable, but immature.

A mature democracy, Kostadinovski says, involves a high level of constitutional and political culture, strong respect of rule of law, stable and independent institutions and institutions that have stood the test of time and are able to effectively address challenges, including political crises, economic, health or any other collapses, deeply rooted norms that honor fundamental liberties and the rights of the citizens. 

Mature democracies too can undergo phases of instability, he adds, but without losing their basic democratic character. 

“Thus, it cannot be allowed the Macedonian society to ‘tremble’ waiting for a decision of the Constitutional Court on a certain matter. It is not right when political actors swear in the legal state, rule of law and European standards in the morning, only in the afternoon to label Constitutional Court decisions as political, ethnic, religious, etc. Politics shouldn’t be above the law, overstepping the Constitution, making legal chaos, which paves the way for political chaos. When the Court offers a legal response to the chaos, then it is labelled or its decisions are the introduction to political tensions. It’s high time we transitioned to mature democracy, which benefits everyone,” Kostadinovski says in the interview. 

According to him, the Constitutional Court decisions shouldn’t be perceived as a threat against someone or something that increases or diminishes one’s rights. Instead, they should be perceived as a framework for actions according to the Court’s findings for all other governments – legislative, executive, judicial, monetary and local. 

“The Constitutional Court is at the top of the pyramid called rule of law. That’s why constitutional courts exist, nothing more, nothing less. This is my answer to you and I also urge the citizens, state bodies and politicians – if you do mean well to the Republic, turn your words into actions aligned with the real needs of the citizens for a mature democratic society. Any action taken outside this framework to me is pure manipulation with the public. If any Constitutional Court decisions could harm the political and ethnic relations, then we should ask ourselves – are we a stable democracy at all,” states Kostadinovski. 

Asked by MIA what can be expected from the Court involving the so called “Balancer” case, included in the agenda of a September 18 session, since it is a topical issue on the political scene, Kostadinovski says the Court can be expected to present constitutional and legal facts and argument and to reach a decision that is constitutionally sound. 

“The issue has been raised before the Constitutional Court and it is our duty to respond. Any other state body could act, not act, could wait for the Constitutional Court outcome, etc. It is not my job to comment any announcements, plans, reactions, positions of the politicians or office holders in relation to the so called ‘Balancer’,” says the Constitutional Court President. 

According to him, only a legally fact-based decision could affect the public’s trust in rule of law.

“The State Commission for Prevention of Corruption filed the initiative. The issue before the Court undoubtedly creates dilemmas in our society. It is our duty to eliminate these dilemmas in a legal way, which everyone will embrace. However, let’s not prejudice, soon the public will have the chance to listen to all the facts and evidence, arguments of the Constitutional Court justices,” Kostadinovski tells MIA. 

Photo: MIA