Macedonian constitutional court and the Prespa agreement: unbearable ease of inactivity

The Constitutional Court is entitled to play the role of a protector of the Constitution as well as to be an ultimate guardian of the rule of law. Whether and how successful the Macedonian Constitutional Court is in its role is not a question of any subjective assessment. On the contrary, it is an issue that calls for an overall objective and critical analysis of its actions. Particularly in 2017 and 2018, many unconstitutional political activities took place, on which the Constitutional Court decided to remain mute. It did not rule on the constitutionality of the amendments, remained silent on the referendum and the Prespa Agreement (PA). Practically, on the key issues of importance for the state its name, history and identity the Court did not take any position, which has devastating effects on the institution and rule of law in general. Bearing in mind that the Constitution does not contain prohibitions or clauses that would prevent altering of certain constitutional provisions (as numerous constitutions have), with the 2018 constitutional amendments (published in the “Official Gazette” on 12 January 2019), the Macedonian Parliament amended the constitutional provisions that go into the essence of the Macedonian statehood and nationhood – i.e., historical facts were changed in the Preamble as well as the name of the state. In the light of the fact that the constitutional amendments were adopted under pressure to implement the unconstitutional PA, concluded by an incompetent body (the Minister of Foreign Affairs), contrary to the existing laws, the Constitution and the international law, then the question of the role of the Constitutional Court in these events gains extra weight. The paper deals with the failure of the Constitutional Court to act when the most essential (national) issues were at stake, until the day of writing this paper.