Screenshot

Analysis of the quality of court decisions in misdemeanor cases

byИнститут за европска политика

The analysis of the quality of court decisions in misdemeanor cases written by Dr. Mariana Loncar Velkova, was made on a total of 60 decisions from four appellate areas, issued in the period from 2017 to 2020, where one of the parties in the proceedings is a natural person.

The analysis was based on a set of qualitative indicators as per the Methodology for Analyzing the Quality and Uniformity of Court Decisions and it does not quantify the results obtained with the quantitative indicators according to the Methodology. Each decision was individually analyzed without being compared with the others, by applying the indicators from the mentioned Methodology.

During the analysis of the court decisions, an assessment was made of the whole decision, each part of it, the manner of presenting the evidence and the existence of contradiction, stating the evidence, determining whether the pronounced misdemeanor sanction is based on legal provisions, ie whether the substantive law is properly applied and whether certain injuries during the misdemeanor procedure were made. The decisions given by the appellate courts were analyzed through the instructions given to the basic court if the case was returned for retrial.

General Findings

  • The analyzed judgments from the Court of Appeals Bitola individually contain the necessary parts and are properly structured. Most of the decisions are clear and concise, although there are aberrations in some decisions. The most common aberrations are when the judgment is rendered without reasoning. The decisions of the Court of Appeal Bitola contain clear instructions for the basic courts, the reasons for quashing or reversing the decision of the first instance court are clearly stated, if the sanction is modified a clear explanation for the reasons is given, indicating where is the difference in opinion between the appellate and the basic court. The care is taken to explain the complaint allegations that are not previously explained and answered in the first instance court decision, paying attention to the deadline for absolute statute of limitation.
  • In most of the analyzed decisions in the Gostivar Appellate Area, the substantive law is not applied properly, substantial violations of the misdemeanor procedure are made, especially in relation to the reasoning in the decisions. Decisions were erroneously made in absentia, so the defendant did not waive his right to appeal. Regarding the decisions issued by the Court of Appeals that were subject to analysis, we can say that most of them have shortcomings that are of immaterial nature, and some of the regulations in force are applied incorrectly.
  • The decisions from the Skopje Appellate Area are concise, clear, understandable and with a sufficient description of contradicting At the same time, laws and explanations are cited and the reasons why the decisions are upheld, reversed, or remanded are explained, taking into account each segment of the decision of the basic court and evaluating it in its entirety, and not only the part that is appealed. The decisions of the Court of Appeals Skopje contain clear instructions for the basic court to reconsider the decision if the decision is remanded, the reasons for quashing or modifying the decision of the first instance court are clearly stated, and the reasoning clearly states why a change was made when the sanction was modified, indicating where was the difference in opinion with the basic court.
  • In the Appellate area Stip to a greater extent, the decisions contain the necessary parts and are properly structured, adopted on the basis of substantive law, and the content of the statement takes into account the factual allegations of the parties through the evidentiary procedure. The decisions of the Court of Appeals Stip are short and with fewer explanations compared to the decisions of the Court of Appeals Skopje, but they are still understandable and the application of the laws was taken into account.

In terms of conclusions, the analysis at the national level indicates that the quality of court decisions is basically good despite the shortcomings, in terms of their structure and legal logic, the reasoning of the decision, and the linguistic aspects (linguistic and grammatical correctness). The decisions of the Appellate Areas Skopje and Bitola are of better quality than the decisions of the appellate areas of Gostivar and Stip, which can be seen from the evaluation of the quality of the individual decisions and the conclusions given for each appellate area in the analysis.

We can generally conclude that there is inequality in the court decisions in the appellate areas due to the observed specifics and to some extent differences in conducting the procedure, presentation of evidence, application of legal regulations, linguistic and grammatical aspects, and other characteristics. However, equality before the law and legal certainty are present in many of the analyzed decisions.

Recommendations

  • Greater dedication and attention when elaborating decisions;
  • Work on harmonization of court practice;
  • The Supreme Court should adopt general legal positions, general legal opinions, legal opinions and conclusions and decisions or conclusions of meetings of the appellate courts on certain issues in the misdemeanor procedure in order to establish a uniformed practice and improve the misdemeanor procedure;
  • It is necessary for competent bodies better to monitor court decisions in all appellate areas, as well as organizing meetings for the exchange of experience and practice and preparing instructions (guidelines) for certain legal issues;
  • Conducting annual comparative analyzes, taking into account all quality and evaluation criteria given in the Methodology for Analyzing the Quality and Uniformity of Court Decisions;

The analysis and the above-mentioned methodology were conducted within the project “Partnership Justitia: Regaining Citizens’ Trust”, implemented by the European Policy Institute and the Association for Development Initiatives – Zenith, which is financially supported by the European Union.

DOWNLOAD PDF

The post Analysis of the quality of court decisions in misdemeanor cases appeared first on EPI.

Продолжи со читање

  • Journalists Decode EU Institutions, Acquis, and Enlargement Policies

    On 16–17 October 2026, the European Policy Institute (EPI) organized the first training module under the project “Decode the EU – Communicating EU policies together” in Strumica. The two-day workshop brought together 10 journalists from diverse media outlets, aiming to strengthen analytical, evidence-based reporting on North Macedonia’s EU accession journey.The…

  • MoU with the British Business Association in North Macedonia

    🤝 Strong economies are built on strong partnerships. Finance Think and the British Business Association in North Macedonia signed a Memorandum of Understanding yesterday, laying the foundation for closer cooperation on issues of importance to the business community, policymakers and society. The partnership brings together the British Business Association’s extensive business network and Finance Think’s […]
    The post MoU with the British Business Association in North Macedonia first appeared on Finance Think.
    The post MoU with the British Business Association in North Macedonia appeared first on Finance Think.

  • On pension matters, participation in Bloomberg

    🔴 What awaits future pensioners? 🟥 What kind of pension model do we need, and who will bear the burden of future reforms? 📌 Without measures, the deficit in the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund will continue to grow, and by the mid-2040s there will be fewer insured persons than pensioners, according to a study […]
    The post On pension matters, participation in Bloomberg first appeared on Finance Think.
    The post On pension matters, participation in Bloomberg appeared first on Finance Think.

  • Is Political Interference Addressed in the Frameworks of the Prosecutorial Councils in North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina?

    This policy brief examines the frameworks governing prosecutorial councils in North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to assess whether their laws ensure adequate independence in line with European standards. The rule of law and an independent justice system are fundamental to the European Union’s enlargement process, particularly within the crucial Chapter 23. A cornerstone of […]
    The post Is Political Interference Addressed in the Frameworks of the Prosecutorial Councils in North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina? appeared first on EPI.

  • Raising the Bar on Integrity: Aligning North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina with the 2026 EU Anti-Corruption Directive

    This policy brief evaluates anti-corruption alignment and structural vulnerabilities in North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina against the EU’s Directive (EU) 2026/1021 on Combatting Corruption. Within the European Union’s “Fundamentals First” enlargement methodology, establishing an accountable administration, an independent judiciary, and robust anti-corruption enforcement is a primary condition for membership. Despite significant differences in their […]
    The post Raising the Bar on Integrity: Aligning North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina with the 2026 EU Anti-Corruption Directive appeared first on EPI.