!In the period ahead, we are working on establishing a system for access and subscription. For access and subscription we will keep you informed. Until then, the content from “Meta” is free to access with an obligatory quotation and attributing.

The Supreme Court has set a public session for the “Monster” case on the 29th of June


Skopje, 21 June, 2017 - 21:46 (META) 

Next Thursday, on the 29th of June, the Supreme Court will set a public session during which the appeals of the six people that were sentenced to a lifetime imprisonment in the case of “Monster” for the murders of five people, will be discussed and decided upon.

The session, as was announced by the court, will be public, and will happen at the Grand Hall of the Supreme Court.

The Court has already postponed this session twice, which was supposed to be held on the 30th of May, but it was postponed for 9th of June and was postponed again because five of the defense attorneys were on a sick leave.

The murders of four boys and a middle-aged man happen on Great Thursday in April 2012.


Vangelovski in his first 100 days: He released Kochan from custody and he put everything else on stand-by


Skopje, 20 June, 2017 - 15:52 (META) 

Today marks the first 100 days since Jovo Vangelovski was appointed as the President of the Supreme Court. This period will be remembered for the decision to release from custody the prime suspect in SPO’s case of “Trust,” Sead Kochan, including several commenced but unfinished initiatives on part of Vangelovski, among which is the procedure that will help determine whether SPO can use the wiretapped conversations or the so-called “bombs” as evidence in a court procedure.

At the start of his mandate, Vangelovski announced reforms in the judiciary, transparency, and openness towards the media, but out of that, according to what the general public knows, little or nothing has been accomplished out of what was promised during the first 100 days.

The President of the Supreme Court so far hasn’t organized a single press conference, and his opinions regarding various current issues were announced during briefings where the presence and use of cameras, microphones, and Dictaphones were not allowed.


Žbogar and Vengelovski discuss the regression of the judiciary


Skopje, 25 April, 2017 - 19:54 (META) 

Today, EU Ambassador Samuel Žbogar met with the President of the Supreme Court, Jovo Vangelovski where they discussed the situation in the Macedonian judiciary.

There still aren’t any details regarding the meeting, but Žbogar made a brief announcement on his Twitter account: “With President of Supreme Court, we discussed much needs to be done to tackle backsliding in the judiciary. The rules should apply equally to all.”

The Supreme Court issued no information today about the meeting, and there is no statement on their official internet page, i.e. the judiciary portal, which until recently, all news and statements by the courts across the country were published.


The Supreme Court officially rejected everything, but gave no explanations as to why


Skopje, 11 April, 2017 - 16:57 (META) 

This afternoon, the Supreme Court released an official statement that they had rejected all requests and objections which were on the agenda for today’s general meeting.

At the meeting, the request made by the Special Prosecutor’s Office(SPO) for the exclusion of the President of the Supreme Court, Jovo Vangelovski was rejected, as was the objection by the Judge of the Supreme Court, Lidija Nedelkova and the objections of seventeen judges from Basic Court Skopje 1 regarding the annual schedule, which was decided by the President of the Basic Court, Stojance Ribarev.

The statement by the Supreme Court did not indicate or give any explanation as to why and on what basis the objections and requests were rejected.

The Special Public Prosecutor’s Office had requested that Vangelovski be excluded because of his part in the wiretapped conversations which were released by SDSM and were recorded while he was President of the Court.


For Judge Vangelovski to be excluded, the Supreme Court will decide at a general session


Skopje, 31 March, 2017 - 12:47 (META) 

Yesterday, the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that the president of the Supreme Court, Jovo Vangelovski be excluded because he is part of the wiretapped conversations that were released by SDSM which occurred when he was the president of the Court.

As this concerns the president of the highest court in the country i.e. there is no higher judicial authority, the law has determined that his exclusion will be decided by the Supreme Court at a general session.

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia at a general session will decide upon a request for the exclusion of the president of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia (Article 37 of the Judicial Law)

This issue is regulated by the current Law for a Criminal Procedure (LCP):

If an exclusion is requested only for the president of the court or the president of the court and the judge or a judge- jury, the decision for exclusion is made by the president of the higher court and if an exclusion of the president of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia is requested, the decision for the exclusion will be made at a general session of that court (Article 36, Paragraph 2 of the LCP).


SPO demands the President of the Supreme Court be exluded because he can be heard in the “bombs”


Skopje, 30 March, 2017 - 13:33 (META) 

Today, the Special Prosecutor’s Office (SPO) has submitted a request to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia to exclude of the president with an explanation that Jovo Vangelovski is part of the “bombs” and that it happened during a period when he was also performing is duties as President of the Supreme Court.

In today’s request, SPO said that in the wiretapped recordings there is a conversation between the then-Minister of Transport and Communications, Mile Janakieski and Jovo Vangelovski, who was then President of the Supreme Court, which in turn “there are circumstances that throw a shadow on his impartiality which is a reason for him to excluded on the basis of Article 33, Act 2 of the Criminal Act Law.” The SPO in its request, explained that this conversation brings into question the impartiality of Judge Jovo Vangelovski to act in these types of cases, as there is a real danger of his previous interest in solving the case which went in a certain direction.

On Monday, Zvrlevski filed a request to the Supreme Court regarding the protection of the lawfulness of businessman Sead Kochan’s custody, who is a prime suspect in the “Trust” case. He requested that the Supreme Court should annul the Basic Court I Skopje’s rulings, dated on the 7th of March 2017, and the Court of Appeals’ decision, dated on the 15th of March 2017, and to have a retrial.


Jovo Vangelovski is the new president of the Supreme Court while Stojanče Ribarev is the acting president of the Criminal Court


Skopje, 13 March, 2017 - 16:15 (META) 

The Judicial Council elected Judge Jovo Vangelovski to be the president of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court Judge Stojanče Ribarev to be the acting president of the Basic Court 1 – Skopje. For Vangelovski’s election voted 12 members of the Council one was against, and according to the Badinter rule, which is necessary during the election of a Court president, five members voted “for” and one – “against.” Ten members of the Judicial Council voted for Ribarev and four were against. Previously the resignation of Judge Tatjana Mihajlova, was accepted.

The two judges were elected by a proposal by the president of the Judicial Council, Zoran Karadžovski.

In a statement for the media he said that they elected Ribarev for acting president of the Basic Court Skopje 1 to be because he comes from the Supreme Court and he has an experience as the president of both Basic and Appeal Court in Štip.

Karadžovski said that the goal is to resolve the current condition in the Skopje’s Criminal Court after the resignation of the previous acting president Tatjana Mihajlova, which was accepted at today’s session.


Macedonia punished in Strasbourg for the case of former judge Mitrinovski


Стразбур, 30 April, 2015 - 12:29 (META) 

This morning, the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled on the case “Mitrinovski against Macedonia,” in which the state is guilty of a violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a fair trial. Macedonia will need to pay Mitrinovski 4,000 euros of immaterial damages and additional 1,230 euros to cover court costs.

Jordan Mitrinovski is a former judge and president of the Court of Appeal in Skopje. He was dismissed from his post in 2011 because of his decision in 2010 to put tobacco boss Bajrush Sejdiu under house arrest. The decision was personally opposed by president of the Supreme Court Jovo Vangelovski, and he personally asked the Judicial Council to dismiss Mitrinovski.

In its judgment, Strasbourg Court assessed that the fear of former judge Mitrinovski that Supreme Court president played a biased role in the decision of the Judicial Council is legitimate.

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights reads:

“The court finds that Mr. Mitrinovski had legitimate grounds to fear that the Supreme Court president had already convinced himself that he should be dismissed because of professional misconduct before the issue came to the Judicial Council. The request of the President of the Supreme Court initiated the process before the Judicial Council, where he submitted evidence and arguments in favor of the allegations of professional misconduct, so he played the role of prosecutor. Then he participated in the decision as a member of the Judicial Council.
System that enables the President of the Supreme Court – which initiated the procedure in question – to participate in the decision to dismiss Mitrinovski, casts doubt on his impartiality. European Court of Human Rights estimates that the role President of the Supreme Court in the procedure was neither objective nor subjective impartial. Therefore, there is a violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the expense of a lack of impartiality by the Judicial Council.”