The Constitutional Court alerted the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Judicial Council over a judge at the Skopje Basic Civil Court who, according to the court, failed to act on its ruling in the case of journalist Natasa Stojanovska. The Judicial Council and the Association of Judges replied with a joint statement - and the reply is more interesting than the complaint itself.

Both bodies say they respect the constitutional position of the Constitutional Court and the binding character of its rulings. But, they add, the independence of the regular courts, the legally prescribed judicial procedures and the available legal remedies must also be respected.

Their argument is specific. In case P4-240/22 the Skopje Basic Civil Court issued a ruling on 4 May this year, after which an appeal was lodged. Since the ruling is not final, its legality is for the competent appellate court to decide - not some other body.

"Any institutional action connected to a specific non-final court ruling requires particular care and restraint," they warn, judging that acting otherwise could create the impression of pressure on the court or of a predetermined outcome.

The other side of the same argument

Lawyer Pavlina Zefic reacted sharply to that statement. Her objection is that the Judicial Council is defending a judge who failed to act on a final ruling of the Constitutional Court, and that independence cannot serve as an answer to a question about accountability.

"We keep hearing the word independence, and rarely accountability" - that is the sentence that sums up her position. Independence without accountability, she says, does not lead to trust in the judiciary - and the price is paid by citizens whose final rulings go unenforced.

Both sides are right, and that is the problem

The Judicial Council is right that an appeal procedure exists and should be exhausted. Zefic is right that independence must not be a shield against every form of accountability. Both claims can be true at once, which is precisely why this argument cannot be settled through press statements.

What is missing from the whole exchange is a third name - the journalist whose case is the subject of all of it. While the Constitutional Court, the Judicial Council and the Association of Judges swap statements about who is allowed to criticise whom, her case sits somewhere in an appeal procedure. That is the point where the judiciary stops being a legal debate and becomes a personal matter for the person waiting.