Mickoski "had commitments" and skipped court: Ristoska is suing VMRO-DPMNE over "What an end"

Prime Minister Hristijan Mickoski was duly summoned to the Skopje Basic Civil Court, as VMRO-DPMNE's legal representative, to answer for the party's statements against former public prosecutor Lenče Ristoska. He did not come. The party's lawyer, Ružica Nikolovska, said the prime minister had urgent official commitments and that his presence was not mandatory.

"There were several months in which the president of VMRO-DPMNE could have arranged his schedule. I believe his failure to appear is, above all, disrespect for the court," Ristoska said after the hearing. She is asking the court to rule that she was defamed and insulted, and to award her 300,000 denars in damages.

A statement published on a "particular" day

The lawsuit concerns the first in a series of statements, published on 14 October 2025 under the headline "Ristoska - a sad symbol of injustice with state bonuses and an official card in the service of Zaev and Grubi". At the time she was handling the "Talir 1" case, in which the party was charged, and "Talir 2", in which its assets were frozen. The party had asked for the assets to be unfrozen, Ristoska proposed that the request be rejected - and the court rejected it on the very day the statement came out. It was followed by 16 more statements in which she was mentioned.

In court Ristoska said she had never used an official card or been issued one, and that she had properly declared all her allowances. The phrase "What an end", with which the statement opened, she said, she took as a threat to end her career, coming from a ruling party that is a party in the very cases she was handling.

Freedom of speech - for the ruling party

Lawyer Nikolovska believes Ristoska's testimony was more politics than legal argument, and the statement an expression of free speech. She also claims this is the only case in the history of the judiciary in which a prosecutor handling a live case against a sitting party has filed a lawsuit. Ristoska later resigned, after she was stripped of her authority over the "Talir" cases, and the Council of Prosecutors found at the time that the statements against her did not amount to pressure.

Freedom of speech is a value. But when the ruling party publishes statements against the prosecutor who opposed unfreezing its assets, and then its leader cannot find the time to come to court and explain them, the question is not only a legal one. Who protects prosecutors when the party they are prosecuting is also the party in power?