Three days. That is how much time passed between the moment the three-judge criminal panel of the Basic Court in Struga returned the passport of businessman Borche Markovski, and the day the president of that panel - and of the court itself - Vulnet Vinca, stopped being a judge. The Judicial Council found he had met the conditions for an old-age pension and rejected his request to stay on the bench.

The order of events is what stings. First a ruling that opens the border for a man charged over a tender worth around 1.7 million euros. Then an exit from the country via the Tabanovce crossing. And only then - retirement.

The paperwork was three months late, but the rulings still stand

The reason Vinca is no longer a judge is neither ethical nor professional. It is purely administrative. He filed his request to extend his term on 21 November 2025; the deadline had been 31 August of the same year. Nearly three months late. With eleven votes in favour, the Judicial Council threw the request out as untimely.

Which means that at the moment he was deciding on Markovski's passport, Vinca was already a man whose judicial office hung on a form submitted after the deadline. He met the pension conditions on 18 July. The passport ruling came later. Who inside that court was tracking which cases were being handled by a judge whose term was running out?

The prosecution was against it - and then it was for it

The most interesting part of this whole story is not in the court, it is in the prosecution service. On 15 June, the Basic Public Prosecutor's Office in Struga issued a negative opinion on lifting the additional precautionary measures. The defence filed a fresh request. The case was referred up to the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Bitola, and the Higher Public Prosecutor issued a conclusion instructing the lower office to submit a positive opinion.

The argument? That the defendant has a company in Serbia whose operations were seriously in question, and that irreparable damage could occur if he did not travel immediately to sign documents. In other words - the defendant's business interests outweighed the measure the court had previously imposed.

Markovski was held at Tabanovce, but after checks he was allowed to leave the country, because there was no active border-crossing ban against him. The Prosecutor's Office says he cannot be considered a fugitive - he is obliged to report to the court.

„I feel no responsibility”

Asked about the decision, Vinca replied that the panel had weighed it, but had received an opinion from the authorised prosecutor. „I feel no responsibility,” he said. He added that the hearing is scheduled for 2 September and that if the defendant does not return, he will be tried in absentia and his property seized.

And when he was asked for a written answer about the circumstances under which the passport was returned, the reply was: „Since I am no longer the president, I cannot sign anything in writing. Address yourselves to the Court.”

That is it. The man who chaired the session where the decision was taken became, in three days, a person with no authority to explain anything. The institution stays, the signature goes into retirement.

What is behind the indictment

Markovski and seven other people are charged with criminal offences tied to a public procurement for relocating drive stations from the Oslomej thermal plant to the Bitola power complex. The equipment was never planned for Bitola at all, yet the tender went ahead, the contract was signed at around 1.7 million euros, and his company dismantled the machines in Kichevo, hauled them to Bitola and left them uninstalled inside the plant grounds.

The guarantee that got his measures lifted amounts to over 303 million denars. The trial, which began at the Basic Court in Bitola, was moved to Struga by decision of the Bitola Court of Appeals. The first hearing, set for 24 June, was postponed because one of the defendants changed lawyers. The new attempt is 2 September.

Will anyone answer for it if the defendant's chair sits empty that day? Or will that too be filed away as somebody's administrative lateness?