epp vol. 5

ММППФФ ee--ЗЗ КК ** ** ** MMPPFF ee--PPRROOCCEEEEDDIINNGG OOFF PPAAPPEERRSS ЈЈ -- 55 -- VVOOLL

ii


iii

ИИ чч // PPuubblliisshheerr::

Ма и П и и и Ф

Macedonian Political Science Forum

УУрр кк // EEddiittoorr iinn CChhiieeff::

- ј ќ,

Marjan Vuchkovikj, M.Sc, President of MPF

– ј , , 1997 „Ј ј „ . К ј – ј , ј .

Macedonian Political Science Forum - Skopje (MPF), was established in March 1997 by political science PrВffesВrs aБd sЗИdeБЗs frВm Зhe Law facИlЗМ )ИsЗiБiaБИs PrimИs aЗ Зhe Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia

e-З и а ви ав ва и а и а ва и в и и и и и а и и и ва а и а и и .

e-Proceeding of papers represents online journal of social and political science and

is published one - three times a year.

а и а а и и и аа а и а Ма и и и ш и Ф . The views of the authors do not reflect the views of the Macedonian Political Science Forum.

ќ ј – . – ј , 174

Texts in multiple languages- Footnotes - Bibliography, 174 pages

МПФ – С ј , . в 9 С ј MPF - Skopje, Goce Delcev Blvd, 9-b 1000 Skopje

/П ав а „Ј и ија П ви / /Law faculty IustiБiaБus Primus /

02/ 3181 571 +389 2 3181 571

[email protected]

e-Proceeding of Papers

mailto:[email protected]

http://mpfskopje.wix.com/e-pp


iv

УУрр уу ччкк рр // EEddiittoorriiaall BBooaarrdd

-- јј ќќ,, ПП аа

oo MMaarrjjaann VVuucchhkkoovviikkjj,, MM..SScc,, PPrreessiiddeenntt

.. --

oo IIvvaannkkaa DDooddoovvsskkaa,, PPhhDD

.. --

oo DDrraaggaann GGoocceevvsskkii,, PPhhDD

-- јј

oo SSiimmoonnaa TTrraajjkkoovvsskkaa,, MM..SScc

-- јј

oo AAnnddrreejj BBoozziinnoovvsskkii,, MM..SScc

--

oo IIvvaannaa AAttaannaassoovvsskkaa,, MM..SScc

-- ЏЏ

oo XXhheennuurr IIsseennii,, MMAA


v

, ј - , , њ ј ј . 1997 , ј ј њ . ј 18 – , ј , , ѓ ј ѓ , њ . ј ј - , њ ј . њ - ј , ј , ј ј Е К . ,

ККЕЕ КК КК ШШКК

- Ма ја виќ

П а


vi

PREFACE

Respected,

Through the e-Proceeding of papers, number five, Macedonian

Political Science Forum has dedicated its time and energy to the

development of the political thought on global scale. Since our

beginnings in 1997, we have created a successful organisation

which analyses key aspects of daily events through the prism of

political science. We have dedicated the past 18 years to the

promotion of the political science in Republic of Macedonia

through various activities. Among our most successful projects are

the two International Academic Conferences, which presented a

platform for many eminent national and international experts to

discuss current politics and positively influence the development

of the political thought on a larger scale.

The forth volume of the e-Proceeding of papers encompasses

scientific papers from remarkable national and foreign experts,

elaborating many key questions of importance to political science.

This Journal contributes to the affirmation of the Macedonian

Political Science Forum as an organization which aims to serve as

a key factor in the development of the political science in Republic

of Macedonia and abroad, as a member of the World electronic

library EBSCO.

Sincerely,

MMAACCEEDDOONNIIAANN PPOOLLIITTIICCAALL SSCCIIEENNCCEE FFOORRUUMM

Marjan Vuchkovikj, M.Sc.

President


vii


viii

ПП .. -- аа јјаа аа ПП вв аа

-- ММаа јјаа ПП ии

ѓѓ јј јј

11

.. -- ии ии аа ЉЉ ии аа вваа вв ии

.. -- ММаа јјаа вваа вв ии

јј

2266

JJeelleennaa TTrraajjkkoovvsskkaa -- HHrriissttoovvsskkaa,, PPhhDD

CCoonnttrrooll ooff ccoonnssttiittuuttiioonnaalliittyy aanndd lleeggaalliittyy bbyy ccoonnssttiittuuttiioonnaall ccoouurrttss aanndd

pprriinncciipplleess ooff oorrggaanniizzaattiioonn ooff ppoowweerrss

6622

.. -- аа аа аа вв ии

КК јј ѓѓ

7777

.. -- ии КК аа ии -- аајј аа

јј њњ

њњ

9955

.. -- иијјаа вв

њњ јј ЕЕ јј

112266

-- аа вв

јј ЕЕ

114455


ix

ee-- КК ** ** ** MMPPFF ee--PPRROOCCEEEEDDIINNGG OOFF PPAAPPEERRSS ББРРООЈЈ -- 55 -- VVOOLL

11

. - ј

- ј

„„ .. КК јј -- јј

„„ЈЈ јј

11..0011 јј

332277((449977..77::449955))„„1199--

332233..11((449977..77))::332277„„1199--

Ѓ Ј Ј

AAbbssttrraacctt

After the World War II, political realism was widely adopted by

the theoreticians and practiced on the American and European

continent. This fact today helps some people to demonstrate the

theory of power, or the realistic theory which is dominant

doctrine in the international relations.

For better understanding of the political realism, we should not

forget the Schopenhauer position that philosophers are creators

of the most important thoughts, and scientist just walk and

paraphrase what philosophers said.

KKeeyy wwoorrddss:: Morgentay, Republic of Macedonia, Republic of

Greece, philosophy


22

Ѓ Ј Ј

1. ј , ј , 1, ј , , ј ѓ . ? , , ј ј ј ј ј ѓ ј .2 , ќ . 2.

ј ј 3 ј ј , ќ . , 4, ј 5, 6 7. ,

1 ј MВЕgeБЗaИ (. J., Scientific Man Versus Power Politics, University

of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1946; Morgentau H. J., Politics among Nations: the Struggle for

Power and Peace, NeК ΑВЕk, KБВГf, ј ; Morgentau H. J.,

Another Great Debate: the National Interests of the United States, American Political

Science Review, Vol. 46, December 1952, . -988; Kissinger H. A., The Troubled

Partnership, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965; Kissenger H. A., A New National Partnership,

Department of State Bulletin, February 1975; Knorr, The Political Economy of

International Relations, Basic Books, New York, 1975. 2 Baylis J. ј Smith S., Uvod v mednarodne odnose, Fakulteta za druzhbene

vede, LjИbljaБa, , . 205. 3 A., , , , . - - ,

ј , ,, . , . 1045). 4 - . . . , ј - . . . . . . ,


33

, ј ј 8, ј ј ј , . 3. ќ 9 10. ќ ,

- - na , ј ј ј , , јќ , , ј ( ј , op. cit., . , . .

5 ј - / , , ј - 1492) - ј , , , ј , op. cit., . , . - / , . . , , , , јќ

( ј , op. cit., . , . . 6 - - ј , ј ј ј јќ ј -

ј ј ј / , - ј , ј ( ј , op. cit., . , . . , - , , ј - ј , op. cit., . , . .

7 - , ј , ј ( ј , op. cit, . , . 169). 8 , Ѓ ѓ ј , ј ј . / - . . ј , op. cit., . . 9 Ј - , ѓ ј , ј , ѓ , . , ј . ј ј , , , џ ј ј http:///www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/32323/Nans-Morgentau#ref160263). 10 ј , ј - : „ ? ј ,


44

ј ќ . ј ќ, , . , , ј . 4. 11 ѓ 12, , , , јќ ? , , / ѓ ј . , , ј , , ј ј :

ј ј ќ ј : : ?, : ќ ќ, јќ . , / ќ . : ќ ? . ѓ ќ ? :

/ ! , , ? / ј , : , / ј ќ . ј ј / јќ ., ќ, , , . 3). 11 - . . , ј ј , (427 - . . . ј, , , ј - ј (

ј , op. cit., . , . . ј , op. cit., . , . 66). 12 ј ј ј ј ј , a ѓ ј

( , , , , , . 327).


55

- ќ, -

- . ? ј , , ј ј . ј ј ј ј , , ќ , ј ќ / ќ ѓ ј . 5. ѓ - ѓ 13 ј, , - ј! ј

14, ѓ .15 ј ѓ - ј . , , ј . ј ѓ - , , , , , , ,

13 , - , ѓ ј ѓ . 14 - , ј ј - , , ј ј - ј - , јќ ј ј ј , ј , ј Ј ј - ј ј , op. cit., . , . 525). 15 Grotius H., Svobodno morje, Ljubljana, str. 57.


66

, , . . , ѓ / ѓ .16

6. , 17 .18 , / . ќ , ј , , / ќ . ј , .19

7. ѓ ј ј ј - , ј , .20

16 ј Inkeles A., Interdependance: Myth and Reality, World Politics, Vol.

26, October 1973: Inkeles A., he Emerging Social Ѕtructure of the World, World Politics,

Vol. 27, July, 1975; Katzenstein P. J., International Interdependence: Some Long Term

Trends and Recent Changes, International Organization, Vol. 29, Fall 1975. 17 Baylis J., op. cit., str. 206. 18 ќ ј , ќ , ј ј . , , . ј , - - ј ј , ј http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/michael_de_montaigne) ., , , , . 162). 19 Op. cit. 20 - , - , , ј , , ј , ј ј ј ј ј ј , op. cit., . , . .


77

, ј argumentum ad verecundiam , argumentum ad rem .

ј -

1. ј - 21 ј ј ѓ ѓ ѓ . , , . , , . . / ј . , , ј . .22

2. ј in concreto, / , ј

21 ј petitio principi . , ќ , . , / , . 22 Benko V., Znanost o mednarodnih odnosih, Fakulteta za druzhbene vede, Ljubljana, str.

63.


88

. ? . ј ј , , ј . , , ј ј / ќ

ј .

3. ј ј :

/ ќ,

ѓ .23 ѓ , ј ј ѓ 24 ј ( , , ...) 25. ѓ , , , ј .?

4. ј

ѓ , јќ , ѓ , : - , ј , . јќ , .

23 Op. cit. 24 : јќ , ќ

, ,

(Aristotel, dushi, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1996, . ). 25 Aristotel, Nikomahova etika, Slovenska matica, Ljubljana, 2002; , I, II III, , ќ, , Politics by

Aristotle, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html.


99

. ј ј ј , . , ј , . . јќ ј , ј ј , . ј ј . ј ј . ѓ , . , ; - , ј - ѓ ј . ј ќ ј . ;


1100

- , ј . ј / ќ. ј . ѓ , . ќ ј ј , ѓ . 26;

- , ј - .27 ј ј јќ ѓ ј . ј ј

26 , , ќ ј . , ј , ќ ј : 26 ј јќ ј ј

ј , , ј / ј ,

, , , ј ј ј ќ

. ј , 4.000 . , op. cit., . 60). 27 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3800?msg=welcome_stranger)

(vidi na http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypOtX1kEo8U. ј ѓ , . .


1111

ј . , / ќ, . ј ј .28 ј ; - , , , .29 - .

28 , ј , ј ?. 29 ( . , ј . ѓ - ј ј ј . . , , , , , . . , ј , ј ѓ ј - ј ј ѓ , ј јќ , , ќ ј PeЗЕič E., Zunanja politika, Center

za evropsko prihodnost, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in

umetnosti, Ljubljana, 2010, str. 410). ј - ј ј , ќ ј ј - ѓ ј ѓ - bilateralen dogovor sklu~en na 13. 09. 1995 g. me|u RM i RG od ministrite za

nadvore{ni raboti - Stevo Crvenkovski i Karolos Papuqas kako pretstavnici na Prvata i

Vtorata strana - formulacii bez presedan - upotrebeni namesto oficijalnite imiwa na

dvete dr`ava, so cel da se izbegne upotrebata na izrazot Republika Makedonija, poradi

gr~ko-makedonskiot spor okolu imeto za koj se pregovara vo ramkite na OON; prviot

vidliv rezultat od pregovara~kiot proces me|u dveЗe dЕ`avi ј e ЖВЖЗВi Вd ЕeaАbИla, БВЕАaЗiveБ ЗekЖЗ ЖВЖЗaveБ Вd ГeЗ dela i avЕ{Бi ВdЕedbi Еedvid Бadle`БВЖЗ Бa Me|unarodniot sud na pravdata za site razliki {to }e proizlezat vo tekot na nejzinoto

sproveduvawe i tolkuvawe, osven onie vo vrska sВ iАeЗВ Бa RM ; ekЖЗВЗ Бa SВglaЖБВЖЗa vidi go vo Slu`ben Vesnik Бa RM, bЕ. / , . )). ј ќ , ј ј - ѓ .


1122

ј , . / / , ј ј . ј . ј ј . ѓ , .30 , / ќ, .31 , , јќ ј , , / ќ, ; - , ј ј ѓ . ј , јќ ј , ј : - ј ќ ; - ј ќ ;

30 , , , , ќ ? ј ? 31 , ѓ ј / (Grotius H., op. cit., str. 70).


1133

- ј ; - , , . - , ј , .

- , ј : - ј ј ;

- ј ќ;

- ј - , . , ѓ . , , , , . : - ј , ; - ј ј , , / /


1144

ј ; - , ј - ј

- , ѓ . ј ј , ќ, .32 : - ќ ; - - . , / ќ . ј ј . , ќ , / / .33 ј aБiАИЖ dominandi - ќ. ќ ј . ,

32 Benko V., op. cit., . 64-66. 33 , , op.

cit., ј ј ј , ј , .


1155

aБiАИЖ dВАiБaБdi. ј ј . . ѓ ј . ќ . . ј ј , .34 ќ , ќ 35;

1. ќ ѓ ј ј : - ј ј ќ ј / ј - ј ј / ј - ; - , , ј / / . ј e ќ; - / ќ ј ј ј , ;

34 Benko V., ВГ. ciЗ., . 68. 35 OГ. ciЗ., . .


1166

. ј ? ј / / / / . , ј , 21- / . ј , , ј ј - ј , , ,

,

.36 ј ј ј ѓ , . , , , , / .37 , ј , , ј . ј , , ј , ј , ј ј . , ј

36 Machiavelli N., Politika in morala, Slovenska matica, Ljubljana, 1990, . 107. 37 Op. cit.


1177

. ј , ; . ј ј ј : - ;

- ј ; -

Ј ј ;

- ј ѓ ; - - ј ; - ј - , ј ; - ј - ј . . ј ј : - ѓ , ј , ј , ј . јќ ј ; - ј ќ ; - ѓ , / ќ ј


1188

, , , ; - / ќ ј . . ј ј ? ј ј - ѓ ј , ј !!! ј : К ?

. ј ј . ј , , ѓ , , ќ ј , ќ . ќ ј ? / ј / , . , ј ј ј ј . , ј , ј ј . , , . ј ј , , , ј , ј , . . , , ј ј . ѓ ј , ,


1199

ј ј ќ ј ќ ј . ј ј ќ ј . ј јќ ј . . ј ј ј , јќ ј , . ј ј , . ј ? ј ,

ј ј , ј ј , ј , ј , ј ... .38

. ј - . јќ ј . ќ ј , ј ј ѓ . ќ/ ј , , ј .

38 ј http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/setDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP+TEXT+TA+P6-TA-

2009-0213+0+DOC+XML+VO//EN


2200

. ј ѓ e ѓ . . , . , , ј

39, ј 40. , ѓ , 41. , ј ј ѓ ј ј ј ѓ Ј ј , ј , ј . ј ј , ј ј

39 ј http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930618d.htm. 40 ј http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u .htm. 41 Petrushevska T., ј Skaric S., Apasiev D., Patchev V., The

Name Issue: Greece and Macedonia, Matica Makedonska, Skopje, 2009, . 250 et. seq.


2211

ј ѓ ј ќ - 42. ј ј ј ј ј , ј , , ј 43. ј , ѓ , ј ј 44. , ј ј ј ј ј . . ј ј , , , ѓ 45 ј ius cogens ѓ ѓ , , 46, ј ѓ ,

42 http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/142/16841.pdf. 43 ј Gross L. (ed.), The Future of International Court of Justice,

New York, 1976; Eyffinger A., The International Court of Justice 1946-1996, The Hague,

1996; Lowe V. - Fitzmaurice M (eds.), Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice,

Cambridge, 1996; Rosenne S., The Law and Practice of International Court, 3rd. ed., The

Hague, 1997; Ј. ., ѓ , , ј , 2009, . 127 et. seq.. 44 ј , , ( Accordance with

the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independance in Respect of Kosovo

(Request for Advisory Opinion), http://www.icj-

cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&case=141&3=4. 45 ќ ј Touval S. - Zartman J. W. (eds.), International Mediation in Theory

and Practice, Boulder, 1985; Bercovitch D. J. - Rubin J. Z. (eds.), Mediation in International

Relations, London, 1992; Bercovitch J., Resolving International Conflicts: The Theory and

Practice of Mediation, London, 1996; Kleiboer M., The Multiple Realities of International

Mediation, Boulder, 1998; Ј. ., op. cit., . et. seq. 46 ј Simma B. (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: a Commentary,

Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994, . et. seq.


2222

ј . . , , , . ,

47. ј ј - ј

ј!!! / ј ј infra legem contra legem. , ј ј ј contra legem. , ј. ј ѓ . . 48 49. ј ј ј ќ jИЖ cВgeБЖ ѓ ,

47 , Ј. ., op. cit., . . 48 ѓ ј ј . , op. cit., . , . 49 ј SiААa B., ВГ. ciЗ., . eЗ. ЖeД.


2233

50. , .51

. : ј

, ј

. ј - ј . - ј . . . , ј . ј ? ѓ , јќ , ј ј ј .

50 ј jus dispositivum). Ј. ., op. cit., . . 51 , ј, , , ј - :

ј

ј . ќ , ј ј

ј .

ј ј ј

. ј

ќ ј .

ј

(Morgenthau H. J., Politics ..., op. cit., . 468-469).


2244

. ј ј / / / ќ

(ultra vires . ј , ј ј , ius cogens52: „ ј (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), , ј ius cogens ѓ , . 53

52 Simma B., op. cit., . . 53 Ј. ., „ ѓ , .


2255


2266

. -

. - ј

јј -- јј

11..0011 јј

3322((449955::449977..77))„„1188//1199 ((009911))

Ј

AAbbssttrraacctt

In the second half of the XIX and early XX century the biggest

part or the whole territory of the Ottoman Macedonia was

incorporated in irredentist projects of the Balkan states which the

mutual antagonism turned into a fierce propagandistic

confrontation in the Balkan part of the Ottoman Empire. The

Balkan states made permanent efforts for the "true"

representation of "The Macedonian Question" in front of the

European public. For this purpose were placed, and often

invented, various historical, ethnographic, linguistic, cultural, ЕeligiВИЖ aБd ВЗheЕ cЕiЗeЕia bМ Кhich beeБ ГЕВveБ" Зhe GЕeek, Bulgarian or the Serbian character of Ottoman Macedonia. Thus,

the major competing national doctrines in the mutual outsmarting

created certain advantages or disadvantages in the use of their

own comparative propagandistic methods, language, awareness,

education, financial impact and history. The biggest problem for

these contenders was absence of its own dominant ethnic group

in the territories that had aspirations. On the other hand, Ottoman

millet system did not enable the rapid development of the modern

nations in later ottoman society.

KKeeyy wwoorrddss:: Ottoman empire, Greece, ottoman Macedonia, Megali

idea.


2277

Ј

X)X ј ј ј . ј -, , ѓ ј ј ј . ј )) ј -1481). , ј ј – ј , . , , ј ј .54 , ј ј , ј , ј ј . X)X , ј , ј - . , , ј ј V ,

54 : ; , , , јќ ; . (eleБ Gardikas Katsiadakis, Greece and the

Balkan imbroglio: Greek foreign policy, AЗheБЖ, , . .


2288

ј ѓ .55 ј ј ј ѓ ј . , )), ј , , , , ј . , . . , - , ј . ј ј - ј , , ј ј , ј - . , „ ј ј , .56

, ќ ј , .57 ј

55 , ј ј - ; - , ј , , . ; Ј , ј - . , ј , , . -7.

56 RichaЕd ClВgg, „The GЕeek MilleЗ iБ Зhe OЗЗВАaБ EАГiЕe , Christians and Jews in the

Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, NeК ΑВЕk aБd LВБdВБ, , . 185-207. 57 ј , ј . , ј ј ѓ ј , ј ј ј . ј , , , ј , „ ј . ω σ ς

. ς, σ (1204-1940), σσ , , . , .


2299

, , ј ј . ј , , , , , , ј è ќ ј . , , , ј , ј , ј , , , „ , „ .58 ј , ј . , ј ј ј ј ј ј , ј . ј ј ќ , , .59 . . , ј

58 , „ ј - : , , ј , , . -120. 59 . Ј , ..., . .


3300

ј ј , è , , ј . ј , , „ , јќ ј ќ ј - .60 ј ј, ј „ ј 61 Ј 62. ј . , ј ј ј X)X , . , ј ј . ј ј ј ј , ѓ , , - , è ј .63 ј , , ,

60 , ѓ : ј ј , ј , , . . 61 , ј , , , . . 62 Ј - , , ј -1 . ј ј ј . 63 , „ ј ј : ј , , , . - , ј , , . .


3311

, ј .64 : „ ј ј , ј ј . ј ј , ј ј . , … … .65 , ј ј , „ 66 ј .67 ј , ј , ј - , ј . ј ј . . , ј , ј , , ј . , ј „ , јќ ј , јќ

64 . , ј ..., . . 65 , „ ј ј X)X ,

ј , ј , , . 66 Ј , X)X , „ , ј ј , ј ј ј , јќ јќ ј , , . Ю , ь ь , , , . . 67 Ю. , ь ь ..., . .


3322

, . „ . , 68 ј ј ј јќ ј ј , ј , ј ј „ ј , ј .69 ј , ѓ јќ ј ј . , , , ј ј , . . , ј ј . , ј ј . ј , , . , , ѓ .70 , ј ќ , ѓ ј ј .71 ј , ј ј

68 , ј . 69 ј ј ќ ј , ј ј „ ј . Ю ,

я я X)X , я, , . . 70 . Ј , …, . -37. 71 , ј , , , . .


3333

ј ј ј , ј ј ј ј . , ј „ , ј . . . , ѓ , ј ј , ј . ѓ ј ј , . ј , , џ ј . , , ј ќ, . , X)X , , è ј . ј , ј ј ј ј ј ј , ј . ќ ј ј ј . ј ј ј ј . ј ј


3344

ќ , .72

- ј è ј , X)X . ј ј ј - . , , ј , . ѓ , ј ѓ ј, ј .73

- „ќ - , , ј , , ј - .74 ј - ј ќ ј . , ј - , „ ѓ … [ ј ]

72 H. Gardikas Katsiadakis, Greece and the Balkan imbroglio..., . . . 73 , „ ј ј XV))) X)X , ј , ј , ј , . 74 , К

X)X , ј , , . 10.


3355

ј , , .75 ј - ј ј é . , ј ј ј - , ј ѓ . , , ј , - ј . „ ј , ј .76

ј , X)X , ќ , ј ј . ј , , , ј „ќ .77 ј

75 ј , - ј , ј , , . . 76 . . ς, σ ..., . , . 77 . , К …, .


3366

, ј ј ј ј . , , ј , ј ј . , , ј ј . , , ј . ј ј , ј ј . , , ј ј , ј , , . : , Ј џ – Џ , ј , , ј , . , , ј ј . ј ј ј ј . , „ ј . , , „ , . ј „ , ќ


3377

.78 „ , ј „ ј ј ј ј . „ ј ќ .79 ј , , , ј , ј ј ј ј .80 , ј , - ј , ј ј .81 , , ќ , . . ј - ј , ј ј . , ј ј . ј ј „ ј ј ј ј . ј ј ѓ X)X

78 Ю. , я я X)X…, 121. 79 . . ς, σ ..., . . 80 , σ σ ς σ Β ; ωσ ς

ς ς -1904, , , . . 81 ќ ј: , , ј , , . -

75, 101-121.


3388

ј . ј ј ј . , ј ј , ќ, , „ . , ј ј ј ѓ

- ј - - X)X .82 ј , ј ј ј ј ј ѓ ј . ѝ ј ј ј , ј ј ј ј ј . , 83, , - „ , „ .

82 ј , -1903), ј , , . . 83 ј ј ј ј ј , ј , . , „ , , , ј , , јќ ј ј . ώ ς σ ς, ω ς ς, ς ώ , , σ ς σ , . , , , . .


3399

, ј , . . ј : , , ј .84 , „ ј ј . . „ .85 „ , ј ѓ , ј , . ј „ ј ј ј

.86 ј ј ј . , ј

84 ј , : К ј ј , , ј , ј , , . .

85 . , : К ј …, . . 86 ј , ј

. ќ ј , . ј , ј ј ј . , . . ј ј ј . . . ј , ј . ј , ј -1881, ј , , . -25.


4400

, , ј ј ј ј . ј ј ј ј ќ „ ј . ј , ј , , ј ј . ѓ ј ј . ј ј , ј ј ј , ј , „ ј , ј „ јќ ј , .87 ј , , ѓ ј , ј ј . , ј , ќ , . ј , ј ј ј . ј

87 - , ω ω ω

σ ς σ , 1903-1904, , , . , .


4411

è ќ . , ј , , è „ ј . ј ј . , ќ , ј ј ј .88 , ј ј : „ ј , ј – ј , – ј ј – ј .89 , ј ј ј . ј , , , é, „ , , ј ј ѓ ј . „ , ј . ќ ј , јќ ј ј . ј „

88 ј , , , ј , , . . 89 χ , ως άσ ς ή ς, , 1935, . -4.


4422

ј ј . , é, ќ ј . , ј , , . , ј ј , ј „ ј .90 „ [ ] , јќ , .91 „ ј , , ј ќ , , . . ќ ѓ ј ј .92

ј , . . ј ј . ј ј , , ј ј . , ј ѓ ј

90 ω σ ς . ς, ς σ ς ω σ ω - ; σ σ χ ω , σσ , , . . 91 . , σ σ ς σ Β ..., . . 92 ω σ ς . ς, „ σ ώς σ ς ς σ ς ς ώ (1904- , ς

ώ ς: σ , σσ , 1987, . .

http://opac.ems.gr:92/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=21375&query_desc=au%3A%CE%92%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%BB%CF%8C%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82%2C%20%CE%9A%CF%89%CE%BD%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82%20%CE%91.



4433

ј ј , ј ј .93 ј , ј ј : , ј , ј , ј „ , . . „ , ј .94 ј , . ј , ј , „ , ј .95

ј X)X ј ј ј , ј . ј ј ј ј ј . , ѓ ј ј , ј ј , . ј ј , ј ј

96, ,

93 Ю. , ь ь ..., . . 94 , , , ј , , . 95 Ю. , ь ь ..., . . 96 Ѓ ѓ , - ; , ј , .


4444

ј ј .97 ј , , , „ ј , ј .98 ј , ј ј , ј ј , , ј , ј , . јќ ј ј ј, ј ј ј , . ј ј ј . ј ј ј , , ј ј . ј ј ј ј ј „ ј ј .99 , ј ќ ј ѓ ј , ј ј ј

97 - , „ ј … . ј . , . . . 98 , „

, ј ј ; ј , ј , . XXX)X, , . - , . . 99 . , К …, . .


4455

ј . , , ј ј , ј . ѝ ј , ј ќ ј , , ј , јќ ј ј ј . , é ј , ј , ј ј , ј . ј ј , јќ ј ј ј ј „ „ , , ј ј „ .100 ј . „ ј , ј ј . ј ј ј . „ „ ј ј , ј .

100 ќ ј ј: , ј К ј -1903), ј , , . ; џ ,

, , ), ј , , . - ; . , ..., . -85.


4466

ј ј , , ј ј . ѓ , ј , ј „ ј . ј .101 јќ , „ ј ј .102 ј , . ј ј, ј ј ј ј . , ј , „ .103 ј ј . „ ј „ , . ј

101 „ ј ј . „ ќ ј ј . . . ς, σ ..., . . 102 ќ ј: , „ , ј , , . 44-57. 103 . - , ω ω ω ..., . .


4477

, . . . ј „ ј ѓ ј ј . ј - X)X , ј . , јќ ј ј , ј ј ј . ј ј , ј ј , ј . ѓ , ј ј . , , ј ј , .104 , ј . ј ј ј ј . ј ј , ј ј ѓ „ ј ј .105 ј ј , ј „ ј . ј ј ј ѓ ј ѝ

104 Ю. , я я X)X…, . . 105 . , ј ..., . .


4488

„ . ј ј ј , ј . , - ј , - , ј .106 ј - ј , ј - .107 ј , , ѓ . , , ј , , ј ќ ј ј . ј ј , . . „ ј . ѓ ќ , . . , ѝ ј „ , ј ј . ј , ј

106 Ю. , я я X)X…, . . 107 . - , ω ω ω ..., . .


4499

, ѝ .108 јќ ј ј , , , ј ѝ . ј . ѝ ј , ј , ј .109 è ј ј . , - ј , ј .110 - ј ѓ . - ј ј , ј ј , , . ј , , , ј , ј ј ј . ј ќ

108 . , К …, . . 109 , , . 110 , ь я: , я, , . .


5500

ј ј ј . , , , ј ј . X)X , ј ј „ . , . . ј , ј ј ј ѓ , ј . , , „ ј ј ѓ , „ ј „ .111 . , , „ ј , ј „ .112 „ , „ ј 113 „ , ќ ј ј ј ј ј .

111 „ ј . ј . ω ς ς, , ω ς σ ς, , , . 331. 112 ς ω ς , σ ; σ ς σ ς σ , , , . . 113 . Χ. ς, ς ω ω σ , σσ , 2007, . -223.


5511

, ј , ј ј . , , „ „ „ ј .114 , ј ј „ , ј ј „ „ ј .115 ј ј , ј , ј „ ќ , ј ѝ 116, јќ . ѓ , , ј ј . ј ј .117 , јќ . , „ ј ј 118 ѓ . ј : „ , ј ,

114 . . ς, σ ..., . 301. 115 σ . , ς ω ς - ως σ

ω ω ω ω ω , σσ , , . . 116 , ς ς, , 1926, . . 117 - ј , ј . , , ). 118 , „ );

-1905), џ , ј , , . .


5522

ј , , ј … .119 „ ј 120 „ 121, ѝ . ј ј, ѓ , ј , . , ј .122 јќ „ ј ј „ ј , ј ј . ј , „ , ј ј ј , : „ ј ќ ј ј . ј ќ , . ќ ј ќ , , ,

119 . , ς..., . . 120 . 121 . . , „ …, . . 122 Ј , , , : „ [ , . .] ј . ј , … , … , ј … . . ς, ..., . .


5533

.123 , јќ ј ј ј , „ ј , … .124 ј ќ ј ј , , ѓ , ј ј . ј . „ , ј , ј ќ . , ј ќ ѓ , . ј . , , , , ј ј , јќ , : „ … - ѓ ј , . . , , . .

123 ь я, , ))/ , . . , . . Ѓ ѓ , ; ј , ј , , . .

124 . , „ …, .


5544

ј , . . .125 ј ѓ ј . ј ј , . , Ј , ј , ѓ . , , „ ј , , ј , . ј ј , „ ј ј ј ј / ј ј .126 ј ј , ј , јќ , é, ј . ј ј ј ј ј . , , ј , é

125 ј . , . . . 126 MichaliЖ KaliakaЗЖВЖ, „)ВБ DЕagВИАiЖ aБd Machiaveli : AЕАed ЖЗЕИggle, ГЕВГagaБda and hellenization in Macedonia and Thrace (1903- , Journal of Modern Greek

Studies, vВlИАe , БИАbeЕ , АaМ , . .


5555

ј . , ј . ј , ј , ј . ј ј , ј ј ј . ј ј , Ј , ј . ј , , ј ј „ ј ј . ј ј , ј ј ј ј . , , , ј , ј . , ј „ , , , . ј


5566

ј ј ј , ѓ ј , .127 ј ј ј , ј . , ј . ѓ јќ ј , ј , . , ј . , ј , ј ј „ . , , ј ѝ ј . , , ј ѓ , ќ . ѝ ј , ј ј ќ ј

127 ς ω ς , σ ..., . .


5577

. ј ј ј . ѓ , ј ј . , , , ј . ѓ , ќ ј ј . „ , , . ј . ј , – ј ј , ј , . ј ј , , , ј ј . ѝ ј ј ј . ј


5588

, ј . , . ј ј ј ј . ј , ј , „ ј . ј ј ј , ј ј ј „ 1904- .


5599

К и е а ли е а а

- Helen Gardikas Katsiadakis, Greece and the Balkan imbroglio: Greek foreign

policy, Athens, 1995.

- , ј ј -1912);

- , ј , . - Michalis Kaliakatsos, „)ВБ DЕagВИАiЖ aБd Machiaveli : AЕАed ЖЗЕИggle,

propaganda and hellenization in Macedonia and Thrace (1903- , Journal

of Modern Greek Studies, volume 31, number 1, may 2013.

- Ѓ ѓ , ; ј , ј , .

- , „ ); 03-1905), џ , ј , .

- , ς ς, , .

- σ . , ς ω ς - ως σ ω ω ω ω ω , σσ , .

- ς ω ς , σ ; σ ς σ ς σ , , .

- ω ς ς, , ω ς σ ς, , .

- . Χ. ς, ς ω ω σ , σσ , .

- , ь я: , я, 1996.

- , „ , ј , . - , ј К ј -1903), ј ,

1977.

- џ , , , ), ј , . - , „ , ј

ј ; ј , ј , . XXX)X, . - Ѓ ѓ , - ; , ј , . - ω σ ς . ς, „ σ ώς σ ς ς σ ς ς ώ (1904- ,

ς ώ ς: σ , σσ , .

- ω σ ς . ς, ς σ ς ω σ ω - ; σ σ χ ω , σσ , .

- χ , ως άσ ς ή ς, , 1935.

- ј , , , ј , . - - , ω ω ω

σ ς σ , -1904, , .

- ј , ј -1881, ј , 1993.

- ј , : К ј ј , , ј , ј , .

- ώ ς σ ς, ω ς ς, ς ώ , , σ ς σ , . , , .




6600

- , , ј , . - ј , -1903), ј , . - , σ σ ς σ Β ; ωσ ς

ς ς -1904, , .

- ј , - ј , ј , . - , К

X)X , ј , 1998.

- , „ ј ј XV))) X)X , ј , ј , ј , . - , ј , , . - Ю , я я X)X

, я, . - Ю , ь ь , , 2014.

- , „ ј ј X)X , ј , ј , . - , „ ј ј : ј , , , . -2, ј , . - , ј , , . - , ѓ : ј ј , ј , . - , „ ј - : , , ј , . - ω σ ς . ς, σ -1940), σσ , .

- Richard Clogg, „The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire , Christians and Jews in

the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, New York and London,

1982.

- Ј , ј -

. , ј , .


6611


6622

Jelena TRAJKOVSKA - HRISTOVSKA, Phd

LLaaww ffaaccuullttyy IIuussttiinniiaannuuss PPrriimmuuss

SSss.. CCyyrriill aanndd MMeetthhooddiiuuss UUnniivveerrssiittyy -- SSkkooppjjee

11..0022 SScciieennttiiffiicc rreevviieeww

334477..999911..007788..33((110000))

CONTROL OF CONSTITUTIONALITY AND LEGALITY

BY CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS AND PRINCIPLES OF

ORGANISATION OF POWERS

AAbbssttrraacctt

Although the institute for control of the constitutionality by

courts is related to the countries establishing the principle of

separation of powers, the issue of the mutual relation of this

institute with the principles of organisation of powers is brought

up again after the breakup of the socialist countries. The issue of

control of the constitutionality and legality by the constitutional

courts is especially important, not so much from the aspect of the

need and the purposefulness of the existence of adequate

mechanism of relations between the separate branches of the

state authorities, but from the aspect of the relation of the entity haviБg Зhe aЗЗЕibИЗe gИaЕaБЗВЕ Вf Зhe CВБЖЗiЗИЗiВБ КiЗh Зhe legislation body.

KKeeyy wwoorrddss:: Constitutionality, control, power, courts


6633

CONTROL OF CONSTITUTIONALITY AND LEGALITY BY

CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS AND PRINCIPLES OF

ORGANISATION OF POWERS

The discussions about the control of the constitutionality

and legality by constitutional courts and the principles of

organisation of powers are constantly present in the legal theory.

Although the institute for control of the constitutionality by courts

is related to the countries establishing the principle of separation

of powers, the issue of the mutual relation of this institute with

the principles of organisation of powers is brought up again after

the breakup of the socialist countries128. The issue of control of

the constitutionality and legality by the constitutional courts is

especially important, not so much from the aspect of the need and

the purposefulness of the existence of adequate mechanism of

relations between the separate branches of the state authorities,

but from the aspect of the relation of the entity having the aЗЗЕibИЗe gИaЕaБЗВЕ Вf Зhe CВБЖЗiЗИЗiВБ with the legislation body.

The Principle of Separation of Powers and Control of the

Constitutionality of Laws

The institute for control of the constitutionality was first

established in the countries whose systems are based on the

principle of separation of powers. This principle is the leading

organisational and structural principle of the legal state.

Stojanovikj emphasizes the importance of this principle insisting fВЕ iЗ ЗВ be cВБЖideЕed aЖ baЖic idea, geБeЕal ВbjecЗiviЗМ aБd

128 The theory of the Constitutional Law notes that before the fall of the

communism there were only two constitutional courts in the countries of

Central and Eastern Europe. Those were the court of SFRY dated 1963 and

Poland dated 1985. Although estimations indicate to the fact that they do not

represent ostensible institutions, their constitutional position is not

constructed so as to provide and practice strong constitutional control of laws.

Today almost all these countries introduce provisions in their constitutions by

which the control of the constitutionality of the laws is awarded to the

constitutional courts.


6644

cВБЖЗaБЗ Вf Зhe АВdeЕБ legal ЖМЖЗeА 129. The principle of

separation of powers which actually means that the legislative,

executive and judicial power must be separated, is in service of

another higher idea, i.e. disabling the arbitrariness of the state

authorities, obstruction of the unwanted concentration and

misuse of powers, and finally and most importantly – preserving

and securing the personal freedom of the individual. In the

sources of the constitutional law, the principle that prohibits

direct or indirect concentration of competencies in one entity is

simultaneously used as an argument of both the supporters and

critics of the institute for control of constitutionality. )Б ЗeЕАЖ Вf Зhe KelЖeБ Ж AИЖЗЕiaБ АВdel Вf cВБЗЕВl Вf constitutionality of laws, it seems that the dilemma of the

incompatibility of the control of the constitutionality by the

constitutional court by the principle of separation of powers does

not exist at all. Namely, if we take into account that the

constitutional courts have clear constitutional position in the

system of organisation of powers, which precisely separates them

from the regular judiciary system, it seems that there is no

disruption of the mentioned principle. On the other hand, driven

by the fact that the constitutional courts are not real law creators

and does not provide for the new rules of behaviour in a manner

done by the legislator, it can be established that this model of

control of constitutionality removed the danger of direct

intervention of the courts in the legislation area.

All of the abovementioned refutes the arguments of the

authors who, referring to the principle of separation of powers,

criticise the control of the constitutionality by the constitutional

courts. Thus, the frequently emphasized view by Schmitt that the

mentioned principle implies restraint of the judicial power of any

interference in the work of the legislator, is relativised with

129 . . ј h. . . Г. .


6655

Kelsen's argument according to which "the idea of separation of

powers to different bodies is realised not so much for their mutual iЖВlaЗiВБ, bИЗ fВЕ ЗheiЕ АИЗИal cВБЗЕВl 130. In the context of the

abovementioned, there are also the claims that constitutional

courts competent to perform cassation of laws have their own

grounds and justification in the principle of separation of powers,

disabling the horizontal concentration of powers.

However, as Kelsen insists, the principle of separation of

powers should not be given precedence to, since it is experiencing

some kind of evolution in the modern state. It seems that the

principle of separation of powers modelled according to the ideas

of Locke and Montesquieu was not immune to the modern trends

of the constitutionalism. The feeling that the principle lost part of

the romantic and authentic becomes stronger. It seems that the

trends of equipoise of the executive power according to the will of

the citizens transposed into the legislator are more and more ВЕieБЗed ЗВКaЕdЖ Зhe cВБЖЗiЗИЗiВБal cВИЕЗЖ. The feaЕ Вf new

seГaЕaЗiВБ Вf ГВweЕs which provided a possibility for secure

positioning of the courts in the process of policy creation is more

justifiable today.

UБlike Зhe KelЖeБ Ж EИЕВГeaБ АВdel Вf cВБЗЕВl Вf Зhe constitutionality, the USA model of control of constitutionality

faced the dilemma of his relation with the principle of separation

of power at the very beginning131.

The American constitutionalists, especially contemporaries, still

try to find most adequate modus by which they will justify the

130 ј . . . . – ј ј . h. . . . . 131Today the views of Bishop Benjamin Hoadly are still relevant according to Кhich ThВЖe КhВ have Зhe abЖВlИЗe aИЗhВЕiЗМ ЗВ iБЗeЕГЕeЗ Зhe КЕiЗЗeБ laК aЕe Зhe ВБeЖ КhВ aЕe a Еeal ГЕВvideЕ Вf Зhe laК, БВЗ Зhe eБЗiЗМ КhВ fiЕЖЗ КЕВЗe iЗ , aЖ well as the view of JВhБ ReБdВlf accВЕdiБg ЗВ Кhich Зhe aИЗhВЕiЗМ КhВ haЖ Зhe right to decide on the validity of the laws without any right to complain is the Еeal ЖВveЕeigБ. See Judicial review unmasked. Thomas. J. Higgins.

Massachusetts. 1981. p. 53


6666

position of the Supreme Court of the United States in the system,

in relation to its competence to refuse the application of the

unconstitutional laws. Finally, the conclusions of Leonard W. Levy ВБ Зhe iЖЖИe Вf КaЖ ЗheЕe Еeal aБd ВЕigiБal iБЗeБЗiВБ fВЕ introduction of control of constitutionality, as well as whether the cВИЕЗ ЖhВИld have aИЗhВЕiЖaЗiВБ ЗВ iБЗeЕГЕeЗ АiЖchievВИЖ phrases of the Constitution, which Кill ЕeЖИlЗ iБ jИdicial ЖИГЕeАacМ, jИdicial ГВlicМ-АakiБg, ВЕ jИdicial legiЖlaЗiВБ , today makes the literature of the Supreme Court of the United SЗaЗeЖ ЗВ ЕeflecЗ Зhe ГЕiБciГle Вf ЕagiБg bИll .132

The fear of idealisation of the bЕave Бew wВЕld in which

the chronic commitment to the majority rule, sureness and faith

that the majority will not infringe the rights of the minority, the

sureness that the citizens will demonstrate the behaviour capacity

which will correct the mistakes made encouraged Bickel and the

modern constitutional law theory to look for the solution for the

transformation of the courts at the ЗВГ Вf Зhe АВИБЗaiБ in the АaББeЕЖ Вf ЕecВБciliaЗiВБ Вf Зhe cВБЗЕВl Вf Зhe cВБЖЗiЗИЗiВБaliЗМ by the constitutional courts with the rule of people, i.e. the will of Зhe legiЖlaЗive bВdМ 133. Bickel Ж "ЗheВЕМ Вf Зhe aБЗi АajВЕiЗМ ГЕВbleА" baЖed ВБ (aАilЗВБ Ж ЗheЖiЖ ЗhaЗ cВАГaЕed ЗВ all ЖЗaЗe bЕaБcheЖ, jИdiciaЕМ iЖ Зhe КeakeЖЗ bЕaБch 134, represents just another try to justify the

132Judicial Review, History,And Democracy: An Introduction. Leonard W. Levy. . staffweb. wilkes. edu/kyle. kreider/Levy. doc 133Suvremeni konstitucionalizam I nova dioba vlasti. Dr. Sc. Petar Bacic. Zbornik

radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu 4/2009. p. 759 134 Everyone who carefully considers the separate branches of power must

notice that the judiciary will always represent at least dangerous branch for the

political rights in the Constitution according to the nature of its functions, since

it will have at least capacity to disturb or infringe them. Not only the executive

power has the honour, but also it holds the sword of the community. Not only

the legislator has the financial power, but also it provides for the rules

regulating the rights and obligations of the citizens. Contrary to them the

judiciary does not have an influence neither to the sword neither to the

financial power, thus it cannot influence the strength nor the wealth of the

community. It can be said that it has no strength nor will; it has only unique


6677

Supreme court as guardian of the Constitution. The emphasis of

the political function of the Supreme Court of United States has ceБЗЕal ГВЖiЗiВБ iБ Bickel Ж ЗheВЕМ Вf jИdicial ЖИЕveillaБce ВБ Зhe work of the other functions of the state authorities. The possibility

for constitutional revision performed by this body provides for

the court to act in anti-АajВЕiЗМ АaББeЕ, ЗhИЖ АakiБg iЗ deviaБЗ institution of the system. By establishing the unconstitutionality of

the laws and other acts of the legislative and executive power, the SИГЕeАe CВИЕЗ ВГГВЖeЖ Зhe Кill Вf Зhe ciЗiНeБЖ ЕeГЕeЖeБЗaЗiveЖ aЗ given historical moment, which at the worst means that it acts not

in the name of the majority, but against its will. However, its ЗheВЕМ Вf aБЗi-АajВЕiЗМ ГЕВbleА fiБdЖ jИЖЗification in the

argument that the court has the authorisation to act as promoter

and guardian of the permanent system values. While the

legislative and executive power are interested in preserving those valИeЖ, aБd Зhe fВcИЖ Вf ЗheiЕ iБЗeЕeЖЗ iЖ Зhe iААediate

benefit"135, the court has greater responsibility since it acts on

long-term basis. He looks for the exit from the majority problem, fВЕ Кhich iЗ adАiЗЖ ЗhaЗ iЖ БВЗ iБ accВЕdaБce КiЗh Зhe heaЕЗ Вf Зhe deАВcЕacМ iБ Зhe ГЕВЗecЗiВБ Вf Зhe ГeЕАaБeБЗ valИeЖ or as he has

concluded "good society is not only the society which wants to

meet the direct need of the majority, but the society which insists

to be a foundation of the permanent general values and their ЕealiЖaЗiВБ 136. Thus, he admits that the role of the court, even

when its decisions have not been in accordance with the will of

the majority, is to protect the rights and the interests of the

individual which finally represents a permanent system value.

judgment and ultimately depends on the executive power even in terms of the

efficiency of its own judgments. ,, The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution . Federalist papers no 78 Alexander Hamilton. 135The Least Dangerous Branch- The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics.

Alexander M. Bickel. Yale University Press. 1986.17 136The Least Dangerous Branch- The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics.

Alexander M. Bickel. Yale University Press. 1986 p. 26


6688

TheЕefВЕe, if Зhe CВБЖЗiЗИЗiВБ ЕeГЕeЖeБЗЖ a ЖМАbВl Вf the nation,

its continuity, unity and common purpose, the role of the court is ЗВ ВbjecЗifМ ЗhaЗ ЖМАbВl 137. However, all of the abovementioned

does not solve the dilemma and the tension for the relation of the

court with the other branches. In the context of this conflict, Bickel

emphasized that the solution should be looked in the "passive

virtues" of the court and the need for the self-restrain from the

decision making without previous estimation of the concrete

situation and all circumstances related to the case. As a variation

of the self-restrain doctrine, the passive virtue, essentially means

restrain from the decision making in situations when the court

estimates that the social conditions are not yet appropriate for its

deed. Therefore Anthony T. Kronman Кill БВЗe ЗhaЗ Зhe АВЖЗ iАГВЕЗaБЗ eleАeБЗ Вf Зhe Bickel Ж ГhilВЖВГhМ aБd Зhe keМ fВЕ understanding of the entire his opus is his faith in the value of the ЗhВИghЗfИlБeЖЖ aБd caЕefИlБeЖЖ aЖ ГВliЗical aБd jИdicial viЕЗИe 138.

Although frequently criticized, and on the basis that it cannot be

expected for the court to be asked to intervene only when its

product is socially desirable, and especially due to the fear of the aГГeaЕaБce Вf Зhe ЖВcial iАГeЕialiЖА , iЗ ЖeeАЖ ЗhaЗ Зhe Bickel Ж theory mobilized the academic community in USA to focus its

study on the so-called Зhe Бew seГaЕaЗiВБ Вf ГВweЕs .

It seems that the American authors are not concerned by

the constantly present views on the incompatibility of the control

of the constitutionality with the principle of separation of powers,

primarily modelled according to Locke and Montesquieu in the

same manner as the possibility for appearance of the "new ЖeГaЕaЗiВБ Вf ГВКeЕЖ". ,, The БeК ЖeГaЕaЗiВБ Вf ГВКeЕЖ iЖ advocated by the resent constitutionalism and its features are the

137Ibid p.31 138Alekxander Bickel`s Phylosophy of Prudence. Antony Townsend Kronman, Yale

Law School. Faculty Scholarship Series, paper 1064. 1-1-1985. p. 4


6699

juristocracy and the court activism. Namely, the historical facts ЗhaЗ USA had ГeЕiВdЖ КheБ Зhe КeakeЖЗ bЕaБch iБ Зhe ЖМЖЗeА Вf power simultaneously represents strongest court recorded in

history will motivate the academic community to promote the

modes and mechanisms for this condition to be avoided. This АВdeЕБ ГaЗhВlВgМ Вf Зhe ЖМЖЗeА aБd effВЕЗЖ fВЕ iЗЖ avВidaБce will become "academic obsession" of the 20th century in a certain

manner.

The new separation of powers, as new situation in the

relations between the branches of the state power, essentially

means a situation in which courts determine or redefine the

action limits of other state branches on the behalf of the

constitutional principles. Thus, Ackerman acknowledges that the

system cannot be imagined without an institution which will

perform a control of the constitutionality because its absence КВИld geБeЕaЗe cМБiciЖА eveБ aЗ Зhe ЗhВИghЗ Вf Зhe ciЗiНeБЖ providing the directions of action to their representatives, and

then eЛГecЗiБg fЕВА Зhe ЕeГЕeЖeБЗaЗiveЖ БВЗ ЗВ ЕealiЖe ЗheА 139.

However, he will establish that the creation of such institution is

not a simple task and that it is determined by cumulated

sociological, historical and legal factors on one side, and the

capability of the constitutor and the general constitutional

engineering on the other side140. The dilemma which was put by

A. Bickel in the 60th of the last century and which is based on the ЗheЖiЖ ЗhaЗ КheБ Зhe SИГЕeАe CВИЕЗ declaЕeЖ Зhe laК ВЕ Зhe acЗ Вf the selected executive as unconstitutional, it prevents the will of Зhe ciЗiНeБ Ж ЕeГЕeЖeБЗaЗiveЖ aБd ГeЕfВЕАЖ a cВБЗЕВl БВЗ iБ Зhe БaАe Вf Зhe АajВЕiЗМ, bИЗ agaiБЖЗ iЗ 141, inspired Ackerman to try

to break the vicious circle in the so-called constitutional dualism.

139The new separation of powers. Ackerman Bruce. Harvard Law Review. No 3

Vol. 113. January 200 p. 668 140 Ibid 141Alexander M. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch (1962) p. 16


7700

His constitutional dualism is composed by the continuous policy

in which the citizens are not included and are relatively

unengaged, so the process of decision making is left to their

representatives i.e. legislative body on one side and the

constitutional policy on the other side in which there is intensive

mobilisation of the citizens since the result of it is creation of the

higher law i.e. adoption of the new constitutional principles.

According to him, the control by the court is not an undemocratic

phenomenon, as many will explain it, but an institute which will gИaЕd Зhe iБЗeЕeЖЗЖ Вf Зhe ciЗiНeБЖ aЖ faЕ aЖ We the people aЕe БВЗ reengaged in the constitutional policy.

Driven by the abovementioned, we establish that the

American constitutional and legal ЗheВЕМ, ЖЗaЕЗiБg fЕВА The

FedeЕalisЗ PaГeЕs to the works of Bickel and Ackerman, still faces

the bitterness from the feeling that there is something radically

wrong in the control of the constitutionality by the constitutional

courts and that it violates the theory of separation of powers. This ЗheЖiЖ ЖЗill ЗickleЖ Зhe AАeЕicaБ legal dВcЗЕiБe, alЗhВИgh Зhe baЖiЖ of the principle of separation of powers in terms of its justification

and complete compatibility with the control of the

constitutionality by the constitutional courts is present even in the КВЕkЖ Вf Зhe fВИБdiБg faЗheЕЖ .

The Principle of Unity of Powers and Control of the Constitutionality

of Laws

The (in) compatibility of the principle of separation of

powers with the institute of control of the constitutionality is

brought out as an argument by both the supporters and its

opponents. That is not the case with the principle of unity of

power. The modern constitutionalism and the thesis on new

separation of powers brought up by it emphasizes that frequently


7711

there is exaggeration in the valuation of the relation of these

principles with the control of the constitutionality of laws by the

constitutional court.

Regarding the issue whether the constitutional judiciary

can exist in the system of democratic unity of powers, the

constitutional and legal theory, especially the one of the former

socialist countries follows the opinion that the constitutional

judiciary is completely incompatible with it, thereby the control of

the constitutionality of the laws as well. Namely, according to

Mijanovikj, "it is stated that without special scientific foundation,

the state system based on the principle of unity of powers does

not tolerate the control of the constitutionality by the

constitutional courts since it would endanger the power of the

parliament and provide potential possibility for courtocracy. 142

It seems that in theory the opinions on the relation of the

principle of unity of powers and the control of the cВБЖЗiЗИЗiВБaliЗМ bМ Зhe cВБЖЗiЗИЗiВБal cВИЕЗЖ aЕe aЖ cheКiБg gИА . SИch adeДИaЗe gЕadaЗiВБ АaМ be ЖeeБ fЕВА Зhe ЖЗЕicЗ attitude of Stefanovikj143 according to which there is complete

incompatibility of the nature of the judicial function with the

control of the constitutionality of laws adopted by the legislative

body through the moderate attitude of Gjorgjevikj according to Кhich Зhe ИБiЗМ Вf ГВКeЕЖ iЖ ВБlМ a ЕaЗiВБal ГЕiБciГle aБd presumption for preventing the executive power to estrange from

the people and its representatives and becoming independent and

142Kontrola ustavnosti zakona. Mijanovic Gaso. Sarajevo. 1965. p 104 143The judicial function would be realised by making a conclusion, so the

conclusion resolving the legal issue being posed is important in the judicial act.

Thus, the judicial function consists of removing the infringement done with the

general provisions Ustavno pravo. Stefanovic Jovan. Zagreb 1950. p. 448


7722

ЗВ bИЕeaИcЕaЗiНe 144, to the critical attitude of Lukikj, Markovikj

and Fira145 for the negative theories of the constitutional judiciary.

Considered from another perspective, the principle of

democratic unity of power is not opposed to the control of the

constitutionality by the constitutional court. The following

arguments are in favour of this view:

The constitutional court is an instrument for protection of the

constitution and constitutional system in their entirety, thus the

principle of unity of powers as well;

The constitutional court does not perform evaluation of the

purposefulness of the laws by control of their constitutionality;

By deciding on the constitutionality of laws, the constitutional

court does not transform itself into a body which creates laws i.e.

changes the will of the legislator since it does not have an

authorisation to change the legal norms or to replace them by

new.

Therefore, it is not mistake if it is established that a priori

views on the principle of unity or separation of powers , their

simplification and exaggeration in their relation with the institute

of control of the constitutionality does not decrease the value of

this institute. This is confirmed by the fact that the control of the

constitutionality of laws, is accepted in the systems based on the

principle of separation and the systems based on the principle of

unity of power by the diversification of the forms through which it

is realised.

144 . Ð h, Ј . . .Г. – Quoted from

ј ј . h. . . . Г. 145 The authority of the legislator is not undermined by the annulment of the

non-constitutional laws, but with their adoption. Thus, the constitutional

judiciary does not decrease the authority of the legislator. It is decreased by the

violation of the constitution by adopting non-constitutional laws, not by

annulling those lows. For more details see ј ј . h. . . . Г.


7733

The Swiss model of control of the constitutionality represents

most adequate proof of this thesis. Namely, this sui generis model ЕeГЕeЖeБЗЖ Еeal labВЕaЗВЕМ" Вf АechaБiЖАЖ, ЖВlИЗiВБЖ aБd instruments by which the control of the constitutionality is ЕealiЖed. )З ЖeeАЖ ЗhaЗ Зhe АiЛ Вf diffeЕeБЗ ЖВlИЗiВБЖ aБd Зhe combination of completely different models of constitutionality

are not in collision with the principle of unity of power. The most

adequate witness for this success of this model is its durability

and extremely rare interventions for its improvement146. Created

in the interspace of the American and classical European model of

control of constitutionality, it enables successful and non

tendentious combination of the control of the constitutionality by

the parliament and the constitutional court147, preventive and

repressive control of the constitutionality, as well as centralised

and decentralised (diffused) forms of control of the

146 The constitutional revision and the provision 191 intend to decrease the

scope of work of the Federal Court at the expense of newly formed federal

criminal and constitutional court. Thus, the Federal court appears as appeal

body deciding on the complaints for the decisions of the abovementioned

courts. See http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/swisscor1.htm and The Swiss

Federal Supreme Court: A Constitutional Assesment and Management

Mechanisms. Andreas Lienhard. http: //www. iaca. ws/files/LWB-

AndreasLienhard. pdf 147 Implemented in the time of creation of Switzerland in 1848, the

parliamentary control of the constitutionality is performed by the Federal AЖЖeАblМ aЖ ЖИГЕeАe bВdМ Вf Зhe ЖЗaЗe aИЗhВЕiЗieЖ aБd ЖИГЕeАe gИaЕdiaБ Вf Зhe CВБЖЗiЗИЗiВБ . AlЗhВИgh Зhe ЕВle of the Assembly in the control of the

constitutionality is significantly reduced, today this body is still competent to

perform preventive control of the constitutionality of the cantonal constitutions

and to decide on conflict of competencies of the central authority bodies. The

Federal Council is competent for disputes referring to the free arming of the

army, religious neutrality in primary school and the guarantee for decent

funeral. The parliamentary control is allocated to the cantons in a different

form. In case the request of the citizens for amendment of the cantonal

constitution by the assembly of the canton, an appeal can be lodged to the

Federal Assembly against the decision of the canton. Notwithstanding the

control of the constitution by the parliament, Switzerland develops the control

of the constitutionality by the constitutional court in its centralised form via the

Federal Court (competent to decide on conflicts in the competence between the

federal power and the power of the cantons, public legal disputes between the

cantons due to infringement of constitutional rights of citizens and appeals of

individuals due to violation of concordats or other agreements), and in its

diffused form when the control of the constitutionality is allocated to the

cantonal courts. Ustavno sudstvo u svetu. Dr Dimitrije Kulic. 1969. p. 232-235


7744

constitutionality by the constitutional court. It is considered that

the system incorporates the role of creator of the constitution, ЖiБce bМ Зhe КВЕk Вf Зhe FedeЕal CВИЕЗ a ЖigБificaБЗ ГВliЗical function is performed, therefore in certain sense it appears as a cВБЖЗiЗИЗВЕ 148, as well as the role to ЕeАaiБ ВБ Зhe field Вf Зhe positivism". The skilfulness of the Swiss constitutor in terms of

this issue, probably is most apparent in the historical fact that the АВdel ГЕВvideЖ ЖeЗЗleАeБЗ ЖiАИlЗaБeВИЖlМ Вf ЖЗЕicЗlМ fВcИЖed disputes as well, and it is also adequate for the settlement of ГВlМceБЗЕic diЖГИЗeЖ iБclИdiБg ВГГВЖed iБЗeЕeЖЗЖ Вf Кide ЕaБge of interested citizens. Today, it seems that this model remains to

testify for the success of a creation, similar to the dancing

preludes of the Salzburg genius.

148Determining the content and the scope of the constitutional rights, the

Federal court simultaneously determines the content of the relation between

the state and the individual i.e. the legal order. Hence there are the

constitutional provisions which protect the individual from the state

authorities, provide his/her participation in the creation of the state will,

provide rights of equality, represent postulates without which the legal order

cannot function. Sudska kontrola ustavnosti-uporednopravni pogled na neke

problem ustavnosti. Dr Mihailo Stojanovic. Beograd. 1960. p. 62


7755

BBiibblliiooggrraapphhyy

Ackerman Bruce. The new separation of powers. Harvard Law

Review. No 3 Vol. 113. January 2000

Alexander Bickel`s Philosophy of Prudence. Antony Townsend KЕВБАaБ. The Αale LaК JВИЕБal. VВl. .БВ . . Ј . . . 2006.

Judicial Review, History,And Democracy: An Introduction. Leonard W. LevМ. . staffweb. wilkes. edu/kyle. kreider/Levy. doc

Kontrola ustavnosti zakona. Mijanovic Gaso. Sarajevo. 1965.

Pavcnik Marijan, Mavcic Arne. Ustavno sodstvo. Cankarjeva

Zalozba. Ljubljana. 2000

Petar Bacic. SИvЕeАeБi kВБsЗiЗИciВБaliНaА i ,, БВva diВba vlasЗi. Zbornik radova

Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu.4/2009.

. ј . )) . . . . . . . . Ð h Ј . .

. ј ј . . . . . ј

Ј . .

. . . .

, . . . . .


7766


7777

. -

-- јј

11.. 0011 јј

331166::7744::116655..772233

Ј Ѓ

AAbbssttrraacctt

While universalism and cultural relativism are in

correlation and interdependence, the relationship between them

is rarely discussed. Upon review and analysis of human rights, we

usually think only of normative part. On the other hand, it is clear

that in the preparation of international and domestic legal norms

we are starting from the historical, cultural and customary

traditions of citizens who are living in these territories and will

apply to those norms. Although there are contradictions of

universalism versus cultural relativism to which one of them

should be given more attention, more theory agrees that

acceptance of the idea of universality and diversity goals do not

question the validity and applicability of the norms of cultural

relativism.

KKeeyy wwoorrddss:: Human rights, Cultural relativism, tradition, religion,

civilization, borders.


7788

ј ѓ , ѓ . , ѓ ј ј ј , ѓ ќ . , , ѓ , . , ј ѓ , ј ѓ ќ . . ќ , ќ .

ќ ќ , ј . ј ј ѓ , ј ќ ј

. ј , ј ј , ќ . ј , ј ,


7799

. ѓ ј . . , , . , , , ќ – ј ,

ј . ј , ј ј ј . , , ј ј ј , ј ј . . ј . ѓ , ј , ј ј . , ѓ


8800

. ѓ , . ј , , , , . ј ,

. , . , , ј . ј ј , ј . ѓ . ј . ј ѓ , . , ј ј . .


8811

ј ј .

, ј ј , ј ј јќ ј . ј ј ј , , ј . , ѓ .149 ј ј ј . ј ј , ј - ј , ќ ј ѓ . ј ѓ

149 (ilde (aМ, UБiveЕЖal (ИАaБ RighЗЖ aБd CИlЗИЕal DiveЕЖiЗМ, A ЕevieК Вf (ИАaБ ЕighЗЖ , LМББe RieББeЕ, 2000, p.259.


8822

ј . .150 ј ј , ј . ј - ј , è .151 , ј ј ј , ј ј , . , ј ј ј ј , . : , , ѓ . ѓ , . ј , , ,

150 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 151 Johannes Morsink,The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: origins,

drafting, and intent,

University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1999The Universal Declaration

of Human Rights, . .


8833

.152 ј ј

, . ѓ ј , . ј ј ј ј , ј. ј , .153

ј , Џ . ј , ј . , , . ,

152 World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 14–25 June 1993, I. 5. 153 ј ,

, ј , - , , ..303


8844

. . ј ј , ќ ј , ј , . , ј , ј . , , ј . ј ј ,

prima facie , ј . ѓ , ј ј . ј , ѓ ѓ . . ј , . ѓ , ј - .


8855

ј . , – ќ , ј ј.154 , ј ? . . ј , , ј , јќ „ ј . . , ѓ

ј , ј ј ѓ ј . , ј ѓ . , . ј . - . è ј .

154 Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice Relativity and

Universality: a Necessary Tension, Cornell University Press, Ithaca andLondon,

2003 p.90


8866

. , . ј , „ .155

„ „ . ќ , . ќ . , , ј , ѓ . ѓ ќ ј ј , . , ѓ ј ј ј ј .156 ѓ , , , , .

155 Jack Donnelly,Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice,p. 91. 156 Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, International human rights in

context, Oxford

University Press, Third Edition 2008, New York p. 366.


8877

. ј ,

ј ј . , , „ ј , . , , . ј , . , ј , јќ . ѝ , ј ј , ѓ . , . ,


8888

. ј ј , ј ј ј ѓ . ј ј - , : „ ј , „ , „ ј ,„ ј . , ј ј ј ј . ј ј „ ј , јќ , ј ј , ќ . ќ , ј , , ѓ ј .157 ј , ѓ ј . ј

, ѓ . ј

157 Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, International human rights in

context, p. 367.


8899

ќ . ј , ј è . - ѓ Ј ј ј, . , .158

ј

, ѓ , . , , , . ѓ ѓ . ј ј,

, ѓ .159 ј , ј . ј ј

158 Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman,International human rights in

context,p.368. 159 Richard Pierre Claude and Burns H. Weston, Human Rights in the World

Community, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1992, p.43–44.


9900

ѓ . ќ , ј ј, . , è, : . ј , ј . , , .160 , ќ ј , . , ѓ , ј .161

, ј , , ѓ . ј ѓ ј ј . ј ј ј ј , ј ј ј . ј , ј ,

160 Eva Brems, Human Rights: Universality and Diversity, (The Hague- Martinus

Nijhoff Publishers, 2001) p.88. 161 : XiaВЕВБg Li, Asian Values and the Universality of Human Rights,

(USA,University of Maryland, 1996) p.18–23.


9911

ј ј ј . ј ј ѓ ѓ , јќ , - , ј ј ј . ј ј, ј ќ , ј ј ј . ј ј , ј, ј ј , јќ . , . 162

162 Adamantia Polis, Peter Schwab, Human Rights new Perspectives, New

realities, (London Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), p.3.


9922

ј .

ј , ј , ј è ќ . ј , ј ѓ , ѓ ј . ј . ј , ј . , ј è , ј – . , ѓ , . , ј


9933

ј ј , ј è ќ ќ ј , , , ј ј .

КК аа лл аа аа

:

1. Adamantia Polis, Peter Schwab, Human Rights new

Perspectives, New realities, (London Lynne Rienner Publishers,

2000),

2.Eva Brems, Human Rights: Universality and Diversity,

Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 2001

3.Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman,

International human rights in context, Oxford University Press,

Third Edition 2008, New York

4.Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and

Practice, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 2003

5.Johannes Morsink,The Universal Declaration of Human

Rights: origins, drafting, and intent,University of Pennsylvania

Press, Philadelphia, 1999

6.Richard Pierre Claude and Burns H. Weston, Human

Rights in the World Community,University of Pennsylvania Press,

Philadelphia . ј , , ј , - ,

8.Xiaorong Li, Asian Values and the Universality of Human

Rights, (USA,University of Maryland, 1996

: 1.World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 14–25 June 1993

: 1. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/


9944


9955

. - - Ј

„„ .. КК јј -- јј

„„ЈЈ јј

11..0022 ПП лл аа аа чч аа аа јјаа

334477..6677((3377::449977..77))

Ј

AAbbssttrraacctt ThiЖ ГaГeЕ Ж ceБЗЕal ЗВГic iЖ Зhe geБeЖiЖ and the development of

the idea of the freedom of testamentary disposition of the defunct

person, especially because of the fact that the treatment of the

solutions for the manner in which the criteria for the principles of

testamentary succession are determined, as well as the position

and the significance of the testamentary succession in different

succession systems seems like constantly present question. (aviБg iБ АiБd Зhe facЗ ЗhaЗ ЗhiЖ ГaГeЕ Ж ЖИbjecЗ of interest is the

testamentary succession in Roman Law, compared with present

Macedonian testamentary succession and in the function of one

more attestation for the influence of the Roman Law over the all

ranges of ius privatum of the continental legal systems, the

conclusion of this short review will be brought down to an

attempt to see the similarities, the differences between the

solutions of the Roman Law and the ones in the Macedonian

legislation, as well as the modern tendencies in the area.

KKeeyywwoorrddss:: testamentary succession, principles of testamentary

succession, testament


9966

Ј

„К ј ,

?... ј ќ ? ,

, ,

-

ј , ј mortis causa ј , ј . , , Ј ј Institutiones Digesta. , ј : e, ј ј ј , ј pater familias ј 163.

163Iul. D. 50,17,62. Hereditas nihil aliudest, quam successio in universum is quod

defunctushabuerit ј


9977

, , ѓ - ј 164, . ќ ј ј ј ј , ј . , ј ј , . . , ѓ ј ј , , - , јќ ј 165 . , 166. ј 167 ј

164 ј ќ : ј -ќ . ѓ . К .( ј : , ).244- ; ј . ј .

( ј : ј . ). 21 SЕđaБ ŠaЕkič. DЕagВljИb PВГВvić.Veliki pravni

sistemi i kodifikacije.(BeВgЕad: )Нdavačka kИća „DЕagaБić . ) 165 ќ : ќ- , ј ќ, . ј ? Ј ј ј

. ј : Ј ј , , -223 166 ј „ ј . ќ : ј ќ, . . Ј ј Ѓ ѓ ј ќ. ј : Ј ј , , -

711 167Testamentum, ј ј , ќ Lex XII

Tabullarum


9988

, , ј 168. , , (testamentum) proprietas)

(emptiovenditio) . , ѓ ј , , . , ј ќ , , , јќ , .

. ј

ј , . ќ .

168 ј , ј . , ј ј ѓ , ј , ј . : , . , , ј , . , , ј , ( ј : , ), 232.


9999

јќ , , , ј . , ј , . , ј , ѓ (intutu personae).

Gai. 2, 97 Videamusitaquenuncquibusmodis per

universitatem res nobisadquirantur. 98. Si cui heredesfactisumus. ..

eius res ad nos transeunt

ј ј . ... ѓ

, ј , , ј ј . . ќ ј , ќ , . ќ ј ,


110000

, 169 ј ј . . ј , ј ј 170 ј ј . , јќ „.. ... јќ „ ѓ 171, ќ ј .

169 ј ј , . , , ј , . ( . / „ „ ќ ј ... ј , ј , ј ј , . . damnosahereditas ј sui

heredes(neredesnecessarii) ј , . , 170 ј ј . 171 . , ј ј , ј ј ј .


110011

.

ќ . , ј ј ј , . . , ј , . 172

, ј . , , ј ј 173.

numerusclausus ј ј .

172 , . „ , ј ј ,

173XII pl. 5, 4. Si intestatomoritur , qui suusheresnecescit,

adgnatusproximusfamiliamhabeto; 5, 5 siadgnatusnecescit gentiles familiam

(habento) ј ј suus , famila ј ;


110022

, ј 174. , , , јќ ј ѓ , ј , . ј , ј ќ ј „ ј ј ј ј ј ј , . , ј ј inter vivos, ќ post mortem175.

, , .

174 ѓ ј ј ј , . ќ ј , , ј . 175 ј , , . ј ј ј ј .


110033

, 176 , ј , ќ . , ќ ќ ј 177. , ќ , . , nemopartimtestatus, partimintestausdecederepotest178, , , ј ј , 179

.

,

176 ѓ , ќ ј , . ј , ј , ј ј ј 177 : ј ѓ ,

ѓ , „ ј К ј ј , , ј ,

2013,3- . ќ- , ј ќ, , op.cit.223-225 178 I. 2, 14, 5. Nequeenim idem ex parte testatus et ex parte

intestatusdecederepotest, nisi sit miles 179 ј , ј


110044

, ј ј ј . , ј post

mortem. ј ј , 180. , , heredisinstitutio181, ј ј ќ ј a .

Gai. 2, 229. Caput

etfundamentumintellegiturtotiustestametiheredisinstitutio.

,testamentifactioactiv , , 182. , , ј , ј

180Testamentumestvoluntasnostraeiustasentetntia de eo quod quis post mortem

suamfierivelit.Modestinus, D.28,1,1 181Institutioheredisest caput et fundamentumtestamenti 182 , . / , ј , , ј ј ј . ќ-, , Ј ј Ѓ ѓ ј ќ ј : Ј ј , ,


110055

ј , ј 183. ј ј , ј ј ј . Lex XII tabularum, ј mortis causa, . , ј testamentumcalatiscomitiis, ј , 184. , ј ј , , iusabutenti, јќ ј ќ ј ј . , , ј ј ј . , , ј ј ј ј 185.

183 ј heres esse. ј , , : , , 184 ј ј ј ј . 185 ј ј .


110066

ј ј ј ѓ . . ј ј . , ј , ј ј ј , . ј ј ј 186. ј . јќ , . , , ј , јќ ј ј . . . . ј , , ј .

186 ј ј ј . ј .


110077

, . 187 . ј , . јќ . јќ . -95), . , , ј ј , . , . ј , ј ј ј ј ќ , ј mortis causa. ј , јќ , ј . ј , , ј ј ј ј 188.

187 . 188 inter

vivos ј . - .


110088

.

јќ , , ј ј , . , ј . : testamentifactioactiva); ј ј (animus testandi) . Testamentifactioactiva, . ј , ј , ј ѓ iuscommercii189 , . ј , ј . , ј ,

189civesromani sui iurs .


110099

190. , ј 191. , ј ј 192. ј ј ј ј ј , ј .lucidaintervalla, ј . , ј ј , ј , . , , , , lucidaintervalla193. , ј ,

190 . . „ 191 : , , . 192 ј ј , јќ ј . , ј . ј ј , ј . ќ- , op.cit., 518-519 193 ј ј . , ј ј ј , . Ibid


111100

ј , . , , . . . . , ј ј 194, . , . .

ј ј ј ј . , ј , ј . . „ ѓ

194 , testamentifactioactiva ј , . ј , . , , , ј


111111

. , ј ј ј ј ј ј animus testandi. ј ј , ј , ј , 195. . , ѓ . ј : , ј ј . ј , ј . ј ј , ј . , ј , ј ј . , ј

195 . .


111122

. ј , ѓ ј ј , . . . , , ј 196, ј . ј ј , 197.

, ј ј ј . јќ ј , testamentumcalatiscomitiis, ј ј ј , ј , ј ј ј

196 . 197 ј . . ј , , ј inter vivos.


111133

ј ј ј . , ј , ќ ј . ј „ . ќ . - , ј . , ј ј , 198. . . : , , , ј , ѓ 199.

198 , . 199 , ј ј , . ј , . . , ј .


111144

, , ј . ј , Ј ј , , . јќ , ј , , , , ј ј ј . , ј „ ј ј ј ј ј . , ј , ј ј . , , , . , ј ј ј , ,


111155

, . ј ј ј . , ј ,(ad solemnitatem) ј ј ј ј

.

ј ќ , ј , ќ . . . : , , , ј , ѓ . , јќ , :


111166

ј

testamentum in procintu200 (

ј testamentummilitis ( ј

;

testamentumholographumи testamentumallographum

(testamentumtriperitium); .

testamentumapudactaconditum

testamentumprincipi (iudici) oblatum

testamentumnuncupativum.

ј , ј . ј , , ј 201. , ј ј , , ј ј ј , ј ј . ј ј . ј ј ј , ј , , . , ,

200 , , ѓ prcingere, „ , јќ ј ј ј , ј , Ante Romac. Rimsko

pravo, ΒagЕeb:BibliВЗekaИdžbeБiciiЖkЕiГЗa,1981), 371-372. ј ќ , ѓ ј in procintu. ј . op.cit. 292 201 ј,


111177

, .

202, ј ќ ј , 203, ј ј ј , . , ј , ј ј , ј ј ј , testamentifactiopassiva, ќ ј ј nemopartimtestatus,

partimintestatusdecederepotest204.

I.2, 14, 5. Nequeenim idem ex parte testatuset ex parte

intestatusdecederepotest, nisi sit miles.

, , ј . , Ј ј , ќ „ ј ќ.

202Faciuntigiturtestamentaquomodovolent,faciuntquomodopoterint,

sufficiatqueadbonorumsuaorumdivisionemfaciendamnudavoluntastestato

ris 203 ј testamentummilitis 204 ј , ј ј ј , ј ј


111188

, ј ј , ј . , 205.

, ј , 206 ј . , ј . ј ѓ ј , . , ј ќ ј , 207. ј , ј ј 208. ј ј , ј de legeferenda, ј ќ ј . , - , ј , ј ј .

205 ј , op.cit 292 206 . . 207 . . 208 ќ- , , ј : , ,


111199

ј , , ј ј , ј . , 209. , testamentumapudactaconditum ј , ј ј , , , ј ј , testamentumprincipioblatum , . , , ј . ј , ј (iudicioblatum)210.

Testamentumnuncupativum , ј ј ј 211 , 212, unitasactus ј ј ј ј ќ .

209 . . . 210 ј . 211 ј 212Testes rogati


112200

ј , ј . 213 , ј „ . . ј ј , ј ј ј ј ј ј . . , . ј , testamentumholographumи

testamentumallographum (testamentumtriperitium) ј . ѓ ј 214, ј ј 215. , ѓ

213 ј , . ќ- , op.cit. 183 214 215Testamentumalographum ,triperitium, iuscivile ( unitasactus), ius

honorarium( subscriptio . , op.cit.255


112211

, ј ј . , ј ј 216.

, 217, јќ

218. ј , ј ќ , јќ , јќ ј . , ј , ќ ј ј , ј , , , ј post mortem219.

216 testamentummysticum, ј , ј . Ibid 217 . . 218 . . 219 : ј ѓ , op.cit 63-68


112222

ќ , ј ј ќ ј , , , , , , , , - . јќ ј ј ј , ј ј . , ј , , , , ќ , iusaccrescendi,

beneficiumabstinendi, beneficiuminventarii,

beneficiumseparationis, ѓ , ј ј e . , , , , ј ј , , ј ј


112233

ј ѓ , ј ј , „ .


Berger, Adolf. EБcМclВГ edic DicЗiВБaЕМ Вf RВАaБ Law - New

Series, Vol. 43, Part 2. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical

Society,1953 (Reprinted 1980 and 1991)

Boras, Mile. LujoMargetic. Rimskopravo. Zagreb: PFZ

bibliotekaudzbeniciiskripta, 1980 , . ,. . . , ј : , . BИjИklić, Žika. Forum Romanum – Rimskadrzava, pravo,

religijaimitologija. : - „ , ј – „ ј , . ј , . , . : , Burdick, W.L. :The principles of roman law and their relation to

modern law. Clark, New Jersey:The Lawbook, Exchange LTD, 2004 , : . : – , .

Watson, Alan. Roman Law and Comparative Law.Athens and

London: The University of Georgia Press,(Paperback) - 30 Jun 1991. . ј 47/1996 .

ј 18/2001 ј ѓ , ѓ , „

ј К ј ј , , ј , , . ; : , . , ј . ј . ј : , .. ќ, ј . , .

Ј ј Ѓ ѓ ј ќ ј : Ј ј ,

Moyle, J.B. The Institutes of Justinian. New Jersey: The Lawbook

Exchange, Union, 2002


112244

Nicholas, Barry. An Introduction to Roman Law- Clarendon Law

Series; Oxford University Press; Oxford - 1962 (Hardback), 1975

(Papaerback). , . . , ј . . , , ј , ј : , . - ќ , ј . ѓ .

К . ј : , .

- ќ , ј , . )V . ј : „Ј ј , , . - ќ ј . . . . ј : Ј ј , ,

Romac, A. Rimskopravo.Zagreb: PFZ Biblioteka: UdžbeБiciiЖkЕiГЗa 1981 ќ- , . , ј : , ќ- , . Ј ј

Ѓ ѓ ј ќ. ј : Ј ј , 2011

ќ- , . ј ќ, . ј ? Ј ј

ј . ј : Ј ј , ј , . ј . . ј : ј ,

Stein, Peter. Roman Law in European History. Cambridge:

University Press, 199

Horvat ,Marijan. Rimskopravo deЖeЗВiНdaБje . ΒagЕeb: ŠkВlЖka knjiga,1980 ŠaЕac, Mirela. ΒdЕavkВ LИčić, Rimsko privatno pravo

Sarajevo:Pravni fakultet u Sarajevu, 2006

ŠaЕkič, SЕđaБ. DЕagВljИb PВГВvić.Veliki pravni sistemi i

kodifikacije.BeВgЕad: )Нdavačka kИća „DЕagaБić .


112255


112266

. - ј

„„ .. КК јј -- јј

„„ЈЈ јј

11..0011 јј

334411..9955--005533..22((44--667722 ))

Ј

Ј

AAbbssttrraacctt

The child Ж habiЗИal ЕeЖideБce is becoming one of the most important

jurisdictional criterions in the area of private international family law.

The adoption as the primary basis of jurisdiction under the Council

Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning

jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in

matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility,

repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels IIbis), confirms its

significance. However even after one hundred years of its first use in the

substantive law Hague Convention on Guardianship of 1902 still two

things remain.

This article provides for analysis of the practice of the European

Court of Justice regarding the determination of the habitual residence of

children. This will help in creating a uniform application of this

jurisdictional criteria and a uniform understanding of the concept of

habitual residence.

KKeeyy wwoorrddss:: European Union, law aspects, children, cases


112277

Ј

Ј

ј ј . ј ѓ ј .220 ј , , „ ј

, [ ј ]

ѓ

. 221 . ј - ј ј „ ј ,

220 ј ѓ . , ј ј ј јќ „ ј „ . , Perez-Vera report, Actes et Documents de

la Quatorzieme Session, October 1980, Vol III . 66 (Perez Vera Report) 221J.H.C. Morris, Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws .144 (10th ed.

1980)


112288

ј .222 ј ј . ј ј . ј ј . , ј , ј ј ј .223

К ј ј residence

habituelle, habitual residence) gewöhnlicher Aufenthalt.224 ј ј ј . : ј ј ,

222RohnaSchuz, Policy considerations in Determining the Habitual Residence of

a child and the relevance of Context, Journal of Transnational Law& Policy(Vol.

11:1, 2001), . 223 Stone, Peter, The Concept of Habitual Residence in Private International

Law, Anglo-American Law Review 2000, . . ( Stone, he

Concept of Habitual Residence) 224 ѓ ѓ ј ј . VaЕadi T., BВЕdaš B.,KБeНević G., i Pavić V., MeđИБaЕВdБВ ГЕivaЗБВ ГЕavВ, BeВgЕad, , . . .


112299

ј ј ј . ј - ј ј . ј , , . ј ј ., ј , ѓ ј . ј . ј animussimper Vivendi, ј ј .225 ј ј , , ј (animusresidendi).226 ј ј . ѓ , ј ј

225loc.cit 226 ѓ ќ ј ј ј , ј ј ќ . ј ј , ј . ј ј ј ј , ј Ross ј Cameronv.

Cameron ј „ К ,

ј ј . ,

Ј , , ј , ј ј ј . Cameronv. Cameron 1996 SC 17)


113300

, . ј , ј ј ј . ј .227 ј ј ј - .

„ ј

ќ ј ј . Cheshire, North Fawcett јќ ј Scarman ј Barnet London Borough Council, exp Shah228 ѓ ј ј „ ј

ј ј ј ј

ј

,

.229 ќ ј ѓ ј ј . ј ј

227 . . . 228 Shah v. Barnet London Borough [ 1983] 2 AC 309 at 342 229CheshireJM, NorthP. and Fawcett JJ, Private International Law, Oxford

University Press, 2008, .


113311

ј 230. „ ј ј , ќ ј ј .231 ј ј ј , Federv.Feder-Evans232 ј ј „

ј

ј ј

ј . ј ј ј ј - (Borrás)233 ј

„ ,

, ј

ј . ќ Swaddlingv.

AdjudicationOfficer234 ј „

ј

.

230 Isaac v. Rice 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12602 ( Michael R.

Walsh and Susan W. Savard, International Child Abduction and the Hague

Convention, Barry Law Review 2006, . 231Walsh, E &Savard, S.W., International Child Abduction and the Hague

Convention, 6 Barry L. Rev. 29 2006 . 232 63 F. 3d. 217 (19) at.p.229 233EXPLANATORY REPORTon the Convention, drawn up on the basis of Article

K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, onJurisdiction and the Recognition and

Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters, OJ C221, 37-8 [16.7.1998] 234 Case C-90/97,[1999], ECR I-1075


113322

ј : ј ј , , ј, ј .235 Nessav Chief Adjudication Officer236, ј ј ј , ј . : , ј ј ј ј , ј ј , ј , ј ј ј ј .237 , ј : ,

ј

ј ,

;

ќ

.

235 Stone P., The concept of Habitual residence , op.cit., 347 236 [1999] 1 WLR 1937 (HL) 237 Stone P., The concept of Habitual residence ,op.cit., . 347


113333

, ј ј , ј ј ј ј .238 ј ј .

A (Case C-523/07)(2009) ECR I-2805 . . „ ј . / , ј . / . ј ј : , ј ј -ѓ - . . , . , ѓ . , ј ј

238 NВЕЗh P.M. aБd FaКceЗЗ J.J., CheЖhiЕe aБd NВЕЗh Ж PЕivaЗe )БЗeЕБaЗiВБal LaК, 12 edn. London, 1992, 166, 167


113344

. ј ј , јќ . , ј ј ј Џ. ј , / , , ј . -ѓ - . ј / , , . -ѓ , јќ ј . ј . -ѓ , јќ . ј , -ѓ ј , , , ј ј ј ќ . . ј ј ј . :

„К ј

,


113355

,

Communitylaw), јќ

ј ј

ј , ј

,

ј?

: „К „ ј

. /

ј ј

ј .239 ,

, ,

ј ј

ј , ј ,

,

ј ј

. ,

ј ,

јќ ј

ј .240

, јќ ѓ ј ј ј

239 ј ј Barbara Mercerdi v. Richard Chaffe (Case

C-497/10 PPU) .47 240 Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a

preliminary ruling from the Korkeinhallinto-oikeus (Finland)) — proceedings

brought by A (Case C-523/07), Official Journal of the European Union C

141/14-15 of 20.6.2009


113366

.241 јќ „... „

,

. „...

ј 242 јќ . ј ј јќ ј ј 243, ј ј .244

241 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805 .33 242 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805 .42 243 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805 .37 244 ј . ќ ј ј ј , јќ . ќ ј ј . A (CaseC-523/07) (2009) ECRI-2808 .36)


113377

ј .245

ј ј ј ј .246 ј ј , , ј ј ј . ј , ј , , ј ј .247 ј , ј ј , ј . , ј ј .248 ј „ ј

245 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805 .36 246 ј ј ј ј ј ј .A (CaseC-523/07) (2009)

ECRI-2805 .38 247 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805 .39 248 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805 . 40


113388

ј .249

ј ј ј.250 ј ѓ ј ј ј .251 . ј „...

ј

ј . 252 ј ј (INCADAT) ќ „ ј .253

, , ј .254 ј

249 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805 .41 250 29 Ј 2009 , A (CaseC-523/07) (2009) ECRI-2808 251 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2808 . 17 and 20 252 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2808 . 30 253 http://www.incadat.com 254A (CaseC-523/07) (2009) ECRI-2808 .38, ј , ј . ј „ ј ј .


113399

: ј ј ; ј . ј ѓ ј ј . , ј ј . ѓ 255 ј ј ј ј ј .256

ј ј , ј . , , ј . ѓ , ќ ј , ќ ј .257 , ј ј ј ј ј . , ,

255 ј BarbaraMercerdiv. RichardChaffe (CaseC-497/10 PPU) , ј ј ј ј ј ј , , ј , , ј , ј ј , ј , , ј ј ј ј . .56

256 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2808 . 41 257 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2808 . 42


114400

ј .258

. ј ј . , , , . , ј , ј , ј .259 ј ј . ј , ј ќ ј .260

258 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2808 .43. 9(1) ј ј ј , ј . , European Commentaries on Private International

Law: Brussels IIbis Regulation, U. Magnus, P. Mankowski - 2007 - Sellier,

European Law Publishers .116-119 259 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2808 . 44 260 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2808 .46. . ј ј , .


114411

ј „ ј .

ј ј ј ј ј ј .

„ ј ,

,

, ј

. 261

ј ј ѓ

ј ј , , , , ,

262; ј , , , ј .263

. (i) (iv) 10(b) 261 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2808 .47, (Case C-497/10

PPU) .53 262 ј ј ј , . , ј

ј . , ј ј , ј ј ј ј . , ј ј ј ј . (Case C- / PPU . 55 263 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I- .


114422

ј , . ј ј , ј , ќ ј . ѓ ј , ј , ќ ј . ј ј . ј , , ј ѓ . ј јќ ј ќ ј ј . , ј ј , . ј , ј ј . .


114433

, ќ . ј . , . ј ј , ј , , . ј ј . INDICAT . ј , , ќ .


114444


114455

-

ЉЉ љљ

11..0011ИИ аа аа чч аа аа јјаа

332233..1155((==116633..33::449977--119944..22))

Ј

AAbbssttrraacctt

The contribution of the Council of Europe to the international

legal protection of human rights and the rights of the minorities in

the European continent is enormous. Thanks to the international

agreements on human rights and minorities, rights adopted in the

international organizations, and even more the practice of the

bodies responsible for directly or indirectly monitoring the

implementation in practice of the established rights and the rich

jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the European

pretstavuva continent leader in the field of protection of minority

rights.

KKeeyy wwoorrddss:: Council of Europe, law, human rights, minorities


114466

Ј

ѓ - . ѓ ѓ ј , ќ ј ј , e . ,

,

ј .264 ј ј ј . , ѓ , ѓ , ј 265

264 Marc Weller, Introduction: The Outlook for the Protection of Minorities in

Wider Europe, MaЕk WelleЕ, DeБika BlacklВck, KaЗheЕiБe NВbbЖ edЖ. , The

Protection of Minorities in Wider Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, pp.1-7. 265 ј ј ј , ј .,


114477

ј ј .266 , ј ј ќ ј ѓ – , ј ј ј . , ќ ј , ј ј . , ј , ј ј , ј ј , ј .

ј

ј , ј

.267 , : ј .

ј ј , ј ѓ

ѓ , . :

http://www.australianmacedonianweekly.com/edition/1124_18052010/070_

english.html 266 : Anna Triandafyllidou, NaЗiВБal )deБЗiЗМ aБd Зhe OЗheЕ , Journal of

Ethnic and Racial Studies, Volume 21, Number 4, July 1998. 267 Declaration of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Ensuring the

Effectiveness of the Implementation of the ECHR at National and European Levels,

12 May 2004.

http://www.australianmacedonianweekly.com/edition/1124_18052010/070_english.html

http://www.australianmacedonianweekly.com/edition/1124_18052010/070_english.html


114488

ѓ ѓ , ј .268 , ј ќ , .269 , ј ј , , , , ј , ј ј .270 , , ѓ .271

ј

ј ј . , ,

268 : Geoff Gilbert, The Burgeoning Minority Rights Jurisprudence of the

European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 24, 2002, pp.

736-737. 269 : Geoff Gilbert, The Legal Protection Accorded to Minority Groups in

Europe, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vo. XXXII, 1992, p. 81. 270 Roberta Medda – Windischer, The European Court of Human Rights and

Minority Rights, Journal of European Integration, Vol. 25, Issue 3, 2003, p. 249. 271 : Geoff Gilbert, The Burgeoning Minority Rights Jurisprudence of the

European Court of Human Rights, supra note 5, p. 737.


114499

.272

ј . ј ј ј .273 ј ј . ј ј ј

,

ј

ј – ј

ј .274 , ј . ј

. ј ј

ј ...

, К

– ј –

.275 , ј ј

272 Konstantinos Tsitselikis, Minority Mobilization in Greece and Litigation in

Strasbourg, International Journal of Minority and Group Rights, Vol. 15, No. 1,

2008, p. 28. 273 Roberta Medda – Windischer, The European Court of Human Rights and

Minority Rights, supra note 7, pp.249-250. 274 European Court of Human Rights, Case od Sidiripoulos and others v. Greece

(Application No. 57/1997/841/1047), 10 July 2002, paragraphs 10, 11, 45. 275 Ibid, paragraph 44.


115500

.276 , ј ј ј ј ј . ,

ј

,

ѓ .277 ј , , ј ј .278 ј . ј , ј ј , ј .279 , ј ,

.280 ,

,

276 Gaetano Pentassuglia, Evolving Protection of Minority Groups: Global

Challenge and the Role of International Jurisprudence, International Community

Law Review, Vol. 11, 2009, p. 211. 277 European Court of Human Rights, Case od Sidiripoulos and others v. Greece,

supra note 11, paragraph 41. 278 ј ј , , ј ј . . , ј . : http://cm.greekhelsinki.gr/uploads/2009_files/ap_d_politiko_stegi_mak_po

l_1448-2009.pdf 279 : Greek Helsinki Monitor & Minority Rights Group, Greece Against Its

Macedonian Minority: The Rainbow Trial, ETEPE, Athens, 1998. 280 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Ouranio Toxo and others v. Greece

(Application no. 74989/01), Judgment of 20 October 2005, paragraph 35.

http://cm.greekhelsinki.gr/uploads/2009_files/ap_d_politiko_stegi_mak_pol_1448-2009.pdf

http://cm.greekhelsinki.gr/uploads/2009_files/ap_d_politiko_stegi_mak_pol_1448-2009.pdf


115511

... ј

.281

ј

ј ќ , . , ј – 282 ј ј 283 ј .284 ј ј , ј

ј

,

К ј .285 ј ј ј

281 Ibid, paragraph 37. 282 European Court of Human Rights, Case of United Macedonian Organization

Ilinden – PIRIN and others v. Bulgaria (Application no. 59489/00), Judgment of

20 October 2005. 283 European Court of Human Rights, Case of United Macedonian Organization

Ilinden and others v. Bulgaria (Application no. 59491/00), Judgment of 19

January 2006. 284 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Stankov and United Macedonian

Organization Ilinden vs. Bulgaria (Application nos. 29221/95 29225/95), 2

October 2001, Strasbourg; European Court of Human Rights, Case of United

Macedonian Organization Ilinden and Ivanov vs. Bulgaria (Application no.

44079/98), 20 October 2005, Strasbourg; European Court of Human Rights,

Case of Ivanov and others vs. Bulgaria (Application no. 46336/99), 24 November

2005, Strasbourg; European Court of Human Rights: Case of Singartiyski and

others v. Bulgaria (Application no. 48284/07), 18 October 2011; European

Court of Human Rights: Case of the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden and

Ivanov v. Bulgaria (No.2) (Application No. 37586/04), Strasbourg, 18 October

2011. 285 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Stankov and United Macedonian

Organization Ilinden vs. Bulgaria (Application nos. 29221/95 29225/95), 2

October 2001, Strasbourg, paragraph 112.


115522

, ј .

ј ј

К ... ј ...

ј . ј

...

ј ...

ј ... .

... ,

ј , ј

ј .286 ј ј ќ ј , . , ј , . ,

ј , ј

....

...

.287 , ., ,

286 Ibid, paragraph 47. 287 European Court of Human Rights, Case of United Macedonian Organization

Ilinden and Ivanov vs. Bulgaria (Application no. 44079/98), 20 October 2005,

Strasbourg, paragraph 114.


115533

ј ј

.288 , , ј , . ј . ј ј , . ј , ј ќ , ј ,

.289

ј ј ј , ќ .290 , ј ј ,

ј ј

.291 , ј ј ј .

288 European Court of Human Rights: Case of the United Macedonian

Organization Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria (No.2) (Application No. 37586/04),

Strasbourg, 18 October 2011, paragraph 132. 289 Bernd Rechel, State Control of Minorities in Bulgaria, Journal of Communist

Studies and Transition Politics, Vol. 23, No. 3, September 2007, p. 365. 290

European Court of Human Rights, Case of United Macedonian Organization

Ilinden – Pirin and others vs. Bulgaria (Application 59489/00), 20 October

2005, Strasbourg, paragraph 62.

291 European Court of Human Rights, Case of United Macedonian Organization

Ilinden and others v. Bulgaria (Application no. 59491/00), Judgment of 19

January 2006, paragraph 81.


115544

Ј ј . ј ј ј , ј АaЕgiБ Вf aГГЕeciaЗiВБ ј .292 ,

ј ј

.293 , ј ј . , ј ј ј , ј ј ј ј . , ј ј – .294 , ј ј

292 : Anneleen Van Bossuyt, Fit for Purpose or Faulty Design? Analysis of

the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the European

Court of Justice on the Legal Protection of Minorities, Journal of Ethnopolitics and

Minority Issues in Europe, Issue 1, 2007, p. 14. 293 Dia Anagnostou, Does European Human Rights Law Matter? Implementation

and Domestic Impact of Strasbourg Court Judgments on Minority – Related

Policies, The International Journal of Human Rights, Vol.14, No.5, September

2010, p.731. 294 ј , . ,

ј ќ , ј ј . : Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Supervision of the

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 4th Annual Report

2010, 2011, p. 29.


115555

ј . , ј , ј ј . , ј ј ј , јќ . , ј ј .295 ј , ј . , ќ , – , ј , , ј ј .296 , ј , ,

295 : Nicholas Sitaropoulos, Implementation of the European Court of

(ИАaБ RighЗs JИdgАeБЗs CВБceЕБiБg NaЗiВБal MiБВЕiЗies ВЕ WhМ DeclaЕaЗВЕМ Adjudications does not Help, European Society of International Law, Tallinn

Research Forum 26-28 May 2011, Conference Paeprs No.4/2011, p.16. 296 : Ibid, pp. 16-25.


115566

ј ј ј . ј ј ј , ќ ј . , ќ , ј , ј ѓ . , ј ј , ќ ј ј .297 , ј ј , ј . , ј domaine

réservé.298 , ј , ј , ј ј .299

297 Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Resolution

CM/ResDH(2009)120, Execution of the judgment of the European Court of

Human Rights, United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN and others

against Bulgaria. 298 Ibid, p.15. 299 :

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/194.htm

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/194.htm


115577

ј

ј ѓ ј . , ј – јќ . , ј , ј – ј ј , јќ ј ј ј .300 ј , ј

ј

ј .301 ј ј, ј ѓ – ј , ј .302 јќ , ј ј ј ќ ј ј . , , ј ј ј ј .

300 Gaetano Pentassuglia, Minorities in International Law: An Introductory

Study, Council of Europe Publishing, 2002, pp. 132-133. 301 Geoff Gilbert, Minority Rights Under the Council of Europe, P. CИАbeЕ, S. Wheatley (eds.), MiБВЕiЗМ RighЗs iБ Зhe New EИЕВГe, Martunus Nijhoff

Publishers, Hague, 1999, p. 63. 302 : PaЗЕick ThВЕБbeЕЕМ, An Unfinished Story of Minority Rights, AББa Maria Biro, Petra Kovacs (eds.), Diversity in Action: Local Public Management of

Multi – Ethnic Communities in Central and Eastern Europe, Local Government

and Public Service, Budapest, p. 60.


115588

ј .303 . ѓ , . , ј ј , , ј . , ј , .304 ј ј , , , , , .305 ј , ѓ . , ѓ , ј ј ,

303 : SecЕeЗaЕiaЗ Вf Зhe FЕaАeКВЕk CВБveБЗiВБ fВЕ Зhe PЕВЗecЗiВБ Вf National Minorities, Report Submitted by Albania Pursuant to Article 25,

Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National

Minorities, 26 July 2001, ACFC/SR(2001)005, pp. 14-15. 304 Ibid, p. 54. 305 Peter Hill, Macedonians in Greece and Albania: A Comparative Study of

Recent Developments, Nationalities Papers, Vol. 27, No.1, 1999, pp. 24-25.


115599

.306 , ј ј ј , ј .307 ј , ј ј ј . , . јќ 308, . .309 ј ,

. , .310 ј , . ј ј , . ,

306 Council of Europe: Secretariat of the Framework Convention for the

Protection of National Minorities, Advisory Committee on the Framework

Convention for the Protection of National Minorities: Second Opinion on

Albania adopted on 29 May 2008, 1 December 2008, ACFC/OP/II(2008)008, p.

10 307 : )bid, ГaЕagЕaГh 177-185, pp. 31-32. 308 Council of Europe: Secretariat of the Framework Convention for the

Protection of National Minorities, Report Submitted by the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention

for the Protection of National Minorities, 16 October 2002, ACFC/SR(2002)003,

p.11. 309 Council of Europe: Secretariat of the Framework Convention for the

Protection of National Minorities, Second Report Submitted by Serbia Pursuant

to Article 25, Paragraph 1, of the Framework Convention for the Protection of

National Minorities (received on 4 March 2008), 4 March

2009, ACFC/SR/II(2008)001, p.11. 310 Council of Europe: Secretariat of the Framework Convention for the

Protection of National Minorities, Advisory Committee on the Framework

Convention for the Protection of National Minorities: Second Opinion on Serbia

adopted on 19 March 2009, 25 June 2009, ACFC/OP/II(2009)001, p. 18.


116600

ј ј , . , ј

ј ј , ј

ј ј .311 ј ј ј .312 , ј ј ј

, ѓ . , ,

ј ј

.313 ј ј ј

.314

, ј , ј ј ј , ј

311 Ibid, paragraphs 218-228, p. 40. 312 Council of Europe: Secretariat of the Framework Convention for the

Protection of National Minorities, Advisory Commitee on the Framework

Convention for the Protection of National Minorities - Opinion on Bulgaria

Adopted on 27 May 2004, 5 April 2006, ACFC/OP/I(2006)001, paragraph 20,

pp. 9-10. 313 Council of Europe: Secretariat of the Framework Convention for the

Protection of National Minorities, Comments of the Government of Bulgaria on

the Opinion of the Advisory Committee on the Implementation of the

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in Bulgaria

(received on 14 March 2005), 5 April 2006, GVT/COM/I(2006)001, p. 4. 314 Patrick Thornberry, An Unfinished Story of Minority Rights, supra note 39,

p.61.


116611

ј .315 , ј ј , , .316

ј

ј ј ј , ј . ј , ј .317

ј ј , ј ј ј .318 ј ј , ј ќ ј , ј ѓ .319

315 Report Submitted by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in

Kosovo (UNMIK) Pursuant to Article 2.2 of the Agreement Between UNMIK and

the Council of Europe Related to the Framework Convention for the Protection

of the National Minorities, 2 June 2005, ACFC(2005)003, pp. 46-47. 316 : OSCE MiЖЖiВБ iБ KВЖovo, Community Profile: Kosovo Gorani, 2010,

pp. 5-11. 317 : CВИБcil Вf EИЕВГe, European Charter for Regional or Minority

Languages and Explanatory Report, Strasbourg, 1993, paragraph 11. 318 ј ј . . ., . . . ј , ј ј ј . ј : http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=148&CM=8&

DF=&CL=ENG 319 : EИЕВГeaБ ChaЕЗeЕ fВЕ RegiВБal aБd MiБВЕiЗМ LaБgИageЖ, SeЕbia –

Initial Periodical Report Presented to the Secretary General of the Council of

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=148&CM=8&DF=&CL=ENG

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=148&CM=8&DF=&CL=ENG


116622

, ј , ј ј , , , , , ј .320 , ј Ј , Ј . , ј ј ј , ј ј . ј , ј , ј .

ј ј

ј ј ., ј . , ј ј . јќ ј , ј , , ј – . ј ј

Europe in Accordance with the Article 15 of the Charter, Strasbourg, 11 July

2007, MIN-LANG/PR (2007) 4. 320 European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, Serbia – Second

Periodical Report Presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe

in Accordance with the Article 15 of the Charter, Strasbourg, 23 September

2010, MIN-LANG/PR (2010) 7, pp. 59-61.


116633

, ј ј ј , ј ј ј .321 ј , ќ ј ј . ј , ј ј , ј ј ј , ј ,

. ј , ј ј ј , – .322 , ј ѓ omoyenis alloyenis , ј ј .323 ј ј , ј ј ј ј ј ј ѓ ј - , , јќ , ј ј .324 ј ,

321 : EИЕВГeaБ CВААiЖЖiВБ AgaiБЖЗ RaciЖА aБd )БЗВleЕaБce, ECRI in

Brief, Strasbourg, 2009, p. 3. 322 European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), Second

Report on Greece, Adopted on 10 December 1999, 27 June 2000, CRI(2000)32,

paragraph 5. 323 : NichВlaЖ SiЗaЕВГВИlВЖ, Discriminatory Denationalizations based on

Ethnic Origin: The Dark Legacy of Ex Art. 19 of the Greek Nationality Code, P. Shaw, F. Menski (eds.), Migrations, Diasporas and Legal Systems in Europe,

Routledge – Cavendish, London, 2006, pp. 107-125. 324 European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), Third Report

on Greece, Adopted on 5 December 2003, 8 June 2004, CRI(2004)24, paragraphs

60-61.


116644

ј ј ј , . ј , ќ

ј

ј ј

ј

ј .325 ќ , , , ј ,

, ј .326 , ј .327 , 2,5

ј

ς . ,

ј

ј

ј ј . ,

ѓ ј

ј ѓ ,

325 Konstantinos Tsitselikis, Citizenship in Greece: Present Challenges for Future

Developments, D. Kalekin – Fishman, P. Pitkanen (eds.), Multiple Citizenship

as a Challenge to European Nation – States, Sense Publishers, Potterdam, 2006,

pp. 145-170. 326 Dimitris Chrisopoulos, Acquisition and Loss of Nationality in Greece,

Rainer Baubock, Eva Ersboll, Kees Groenendijk, Harald Waldrauch, Acquisition

and Loss of Nationality in 15 European States (Volume I: Comparative Analyses) ,

IMISCOE Research, 2006, p. 263. 327 European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), ECRI Report

on Greece (Fourth Monitoring Cycle), Adopted on 2 April 2009, 15 September

2009, CRI(2009)31, paragraphs 114-115.


116655

ј

.328

, .329 , ј ѓ .

ј .330 e ј , ј .

К

ј ј .331 ј , ј – ј . , ј – , ј ј e ј ј . ,

328 Supra note 61, p. 39. 329 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent Expert on Minority

Issues, Gay McDougall : addendum: mission to Greece (8-16 September 2008), 18

February 2009, A/HRC/10/11/Add.3, paragraph 88. 330 Permanent Court of International Justice, Interpretation of the Convention

between Greece and Bulgaria Respecting Reciprocal Emigration, Signed at

Neuilly-Sur-Seine on November 27th, QИesЗiВБ Вf Зhe CВААИБiЗies ,

Advisory Opinion No. 17, Series B, 1930, paragraph 30. 331 Council of Europe, Resolution (99) 50 on the Council of Europe

Commissioner for Human Rights, 7 May 1999.


116666

ј ј . ј ј ј , ј , ј , .332 ј , ј , ј ј ѓ .333 ј ј ,

a ј ј .334 , .335

332 Commissioner for Human Rights, Report by the Commissioner for Human

Rights, Mr Thomas Hammarberg, on his visit to Albania 27 October - 2

November 2007, 18 June 2008, CommDH(2008)8, p. 25. 333 . . , ј , - ј – ј / . : ECRI

Report on Albania (Fourth Monitoring Cycle), Adopted on 15 Decemberl 2009,

Published on 2 March 2010, CRI(2010)1, paragraph 36-42. 334 Commissioner for Human Rights, Report by the Commissioner for Human

Rights, Mr Thomas Hammarberg, on his visit to Bulgaria from 3 to 5 November

2009, 9 February 2010, CommDH(2010)1, paragraphs 10-11. 335 Ibid, paragraph 122.


116677

ј – , ј . , ѓ , ј ј , ѓ .

ѓ ј ј . , ќ ѓ . , ј ѓ – ј , ј ј . ј ј ј , ѓ


116688

, ј . , , – , ј . , ј ј , / ј , ј . , , . , , ј ј ј ј , ј ј . ј ј ј ј , ј . , ј ј ј , ј . ј , ,


116699

ј . ј ј ј . , ј ј ј ј , ј ј ј , ј e ѓ ј . ј ј ј – ј ѓ . ј , ј ј ѓ ј ј ѓ , ѓ ј ј . , , ј ѓ (omoyenis alloyenis .


117700


К

1. Anneleen Van Bossuyt, Fit for Purpose or Faulty Design? Analysis

of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the

European Court of Justice on the Legal Protection of Minorities,

Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, Issue 1,

2007.

2. Anna Triandafyllidou, National )deБЗiЗМ aБd Зhe OЗheЕ , Journal

of Ethnic and Racial Studies, Volume 21, Number 4, July 1998.

3. Dia Anagnostou, Does European Human Rights Law Matter?

Implementation and Domestic Impact of Strasbourg Court

Judgments on Minority – Related Policies, The International Journal

of Human Rights, Vol.14, No.5, September 2010.

4. Dimitris Chrisopoulos, Acquisition and Loss of Nationality in

Greece, RaiБeЕ BaИbВck, Eva EЕЖbВll, KeeЖ GЕВeБeБdijk, (aЕald Waldrauch, Acquisition and Loss of Nationality in 15 European

States (Volume I: Comparative Analyses), IMISCOE Research, 2006.

5. Gaetano Pentassuglia, Evolving Protection of Minority Groups:

Global Challenge and the Role of International Jurisprudence,

International Community Law Review, Vol. 11, 2009.

6. Gaetano Pentassuglia, Minorities in International Law: An

Introductory Study, Council of Europe Publishing, 2002.

7. Geoff Gilbert, The Burgeoning Minority Rights Jurisprudence of

the European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.

24, 2002, pp. 736-737.

8. Geoff Gilbert, The Legal Protection Accorded to Minority Groups

in Europe, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vo. XXXII,

1992, p. 81.

9. Konstantinos Tsitselikis, Citizenship in Greece: Present

Challenges for Future Developments, D. KalekiБ – Fishman, P.

Pitkanen (eds.), Multiple Citizenship as a Challenge to European

Nation – States, Sense Publishers, Potterdam, 2006, pp. 145-170.

10. Mark Weller, Denika Blacklock, Katherine Nobbs (eds.), The

Protection of Minorities in Wider Europe, Palgrave Macmillan,

2008.

11. Nicholas Sitaropoulos, Implementation of the European Court of

(ИАaБ RighЗs JИdgАeБЗs CВБceЕБiБg NaЗiВБal MiБВЕiЗies ВЕ WhМ Declaratory Adjudications does not Help, European Society of

International Law, Tallinn Research Forum 26-28 May 2011,

Conference Paeprs No.4/2011.


117711

12. Nicholas Sitaropoulos, Discriminatory Denationalizations based

on Ethnic Origin: The Dark Legacy of Ex Art. 19 of the Greek

Nationality Code, P. ShaК, F. MeБЖki edЖ. , MigЕaЗiВБЖ, Diasporas and Legal Systems in Europe, Routledge – Cavendish,

London, 2006, pp. 107-125.

13. P. Cumber, S. Wheatley (eds.), MiБВЕiЗМ RighЗs iБ Зhe New Europe, Martunus Nijhoff Publishers, Hague, 1999.

14. Patrick Thornberry, An Unfinished Story of Minority Rights, Anna Maria Biro, Petra Kovacs (eds.), Diversity in Action: Local

Public Management of Multi – Ethnic Communities in Central and

Eastern Europe, Local Government and Public Service, Budapest.

15. Peter Hill, Macedonians in Greece and Albania: A Comparative

Study of Recent Developments, Nationalities Papers, Vol. 27, No.1,

1999.

16. Roberta Medda – Windischer, The European Court of Human

Rights and Minority Rights, Journal of European Integration, Vol.

25, Issue 3, 2003, p. 249.

17. Konstantinos Tsitselikis, Minority Mobilization in Greece and

Litigation in Strasbourg, International Journal of Minority and

Group Rights, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2008, p. 28.

18. Permanent Court of International Justice, Interpretation of the

Convention between Greece and Bulgaria Respecting Reciprocal

Emigration, Signed at Neuilly-Sur-Seine on November 27th, 1919

QИesЗiВБ Вf Зhe CВААИБiЗies , Advisory Opinion No. 17, Series B,

1930.

19. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Supervision of the

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 4th

Annual Report 2010, 2011.

1. EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Application No.

26695/95, Hristos Sidiropulos and 5 others against Greece, REPORT OF

THE COMMISSION, Adopted on 11 April 1997, Strasbourg.

2. European Court of Human Rights, Case of SIDIROPULOS AND OTHERS

v. GREECE (57/1997/841/1047), 10 July 1998, Strasbourg.

3. European Court of Human Rights, Case of Ouranio Toxo and others vs.

Greece (Application no. 74989/01), 20 October 2005, Strasbourg.

4. European Court of Human Rights, Case of Stankov and United

Macedonian Organization Ilinden vs. Bulgaria (Application nos.

29221/95 29225/95), 2 October 2001, Strasbourg.


117722

5. European Court of Human Rights, Case of United Macedonian

Organization Ilinden – Pirin and others vs. Bulgaria (Application

59489/00), 20 October 2005, Strasbourg.


Organization Ilinden and Ivanov vs. Bulgaria (Application no. 44079/98),

20 October 2005, Strasbourg.

7. European Court of Human Rights, Case of Ivanov and others vs.

Bulgaria (Application no. 46336/99), 24 November 2005, Strasbourg.


Organization Ilinden and others vs. Bulgaria (Application no. 59491/00),

19 January 2006, Strasbourg.

9. European Court of Human Rights: Case of Singartiyski and others

v. Bulgaria (Application no. 48284/07), 18 October 2011.

10. European Court of Human Rights: Case of the United

Macedonian Organization Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria (No.2)

(Application No. 37586/04), Strasbourg, 18 October 2011.


Macedonian Organization Ilinden and others v. Bulgaria (No.2)

(Application 34960/04), Strasbourg, 18 October 2011).


Macedonian Organization Ilinden – PIRIN v. Bulgaria (Applications

nos. 41561/07 and 20972/08), Strasbourg, 18 October 2011).

1. Report Submitted by Bulgaria pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph

1of the Framework Convention for the Protection of the National

Minorities, 9 April 2003, Strasbourg.

2. Second Report Submitted by Bulgaria pursuant to Article 25,

Paragraph 1of the Framework Convention for the Protection of the

National Minorities, 23 November 2007, Strasbourg.

3. Report Submitted by Albania pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph

1of the Framework Convention for the Protection of the National

Minorities, 26 July 2001, Strasbourg.

4. Second Report Submitted by Albania pursuant to Article 25,


National Minorities, 18 May 2007, Strasbourg.

5. Third Report Submitted by Albania pursuant to Article 25,


National Minorities, 10 January 2011, Strasbourg.


117733

6. Report Submitted by Federal Republic of Yugoslavia pursuant to

Article 25, Paragraph 1of the Framework Convention for the

Protection of the National Minorities, 16 October 2002, Strasbourg.

7. Second Report Submitted by Serbia pursuant to Article 25,


National Minorities, 4 March 2008, Strasbourg.

8. European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, Serbia –

Initial Periodical Report presented to the Secretary General of the

Council of Europe in Accordance with the Article 15 of the Charter,

Strasbourg, 11 July 2017, MIN – LANG/PR (2017) 4.

9. European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, Serbia –

Second Periodical Report presented to the Secretary General of the

Council of Europe in Accordance with the Article 15 of the Charter,

Strasbourg, 23 September 2010, MIN – LANG/PR (2010) 7.

10. PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL,

POLITICAL, ECONOMIS, SOCIAL AND SULTURAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING

THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT, Report of the independent expert on

minority issues, Gay McDougall, Addendum, MISSION TO GREECE (8-16

September 2008).

11. PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL,

POLITICAL, ECONOMIS, SOCIAL AND SULTURAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING

THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT, Report of the independent expert on

minority issues, Addendum, MISSION TO BULGARIA (4-11 July 2011).

12. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: First Report on GREECE, published

by ECRI, Strasbourg, September 1997.

13. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: Second Report on GREECE, Adopted

on 10 December 1999, Published 27 June 2000, Strasbourg.

14. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: Third Report on GREECE, Adopted

on 5 December 2003, Published on 8 June 2004, Strasbourg.

15. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: ECRI Report on Greece (Fourth

Monitoring Cycle), Adopted on 2 April 2009, Published on 15 September,

Strasbourg.

16. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: Report on BULGARIA, published by

ECRI, 15 June 1998, Strasbourg.

17. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: Second Report on BULGARIA,

Adopted on 18 June 1999, Published 21 March 2000, Strasbourg

18. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: Third Report on BULGARIA,

Adopted on 27 June 2003, Published 27 January 2004, Strasbourg.

19. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: Report on BULGARIA (Fourth

Monitoring Cycle), Adopted on 20 June 2008, Published 24 February

2009, Strasbourg.

20. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: Report on ALBANIA, published by

ECRI,9 November 1999, Strasbourg.


117744

21. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: Second Report on ALBANIA,

Adopted on 16 June 2000, Published 4 April 2001, Strasbourg.

22. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: Third Report on ALBANIA, Adopted

on 17 December 2004, Published 14 June 2005, Strasbourg.

23. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: Report on ALBANIA (Fourth

Monitoring Cycle), Adopted on 15 December 2009, Published 2 March

2010, Strasbourg.

24. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: Report on SERBIA, Adopted on 14

December 2007, Published 29 April 2008, Strasbourg.

25. ECR) Ж cВИБЗЕМ-by-country approach: Second Report on SERBIA (Fourth

Monitoring Cycle), Adopted on 23 March 2011, Published on 31 May

2011, Strasbourg.

26. Council of Europe: Commissioner for Human Rights, Report by Thomas

Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe,

following his visit to Bulgaria from 3 to 5 November 2009 , 9 February

2010, CommDH(2010)1.

27. Council of Europe: Commissioner for Human Rights, Report by the

Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Thomas Hammarberg, on his visit to

Albania 27 October - 2 November 2007, 18 June 2008, CommDH(2008)8.

28. Council of Europe: Commissioner for Human Rights, Report by Thomas

Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe,

following his visit to Greece on 8-10 December 2008. Issue reviewed:

Human rights of asylum seekers, 4 February 2009, CommDH(2009)6.

29. Council of Europe: Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of the Council

of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights SГecial MissiВБ ЗВ KВsВvВ - 27 March 2009, 2 July 2009, CommDH(2009)23.

30. Council of Europe: Commissioner for Human Rights, Report by the

Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, on his visit to

Serbia 13-17 October 2008, 11 March 2009, CommDH(2009)8.

31. European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Anti-

Discrimination Legislation in EU Member States – Greece, 2002.