ePP Vol. 5

e-
* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS
- 5 - VOL
ii
e-
- 5 - VOL
/ Publisher:
Macedonian Political Science Forum
/ Editor in Chief:
,
Marjan Vuchkovikj, M.Sc, President of MPF
1997
Macedonian Political Science Forum - Skopje (MPF), was established in March 1997 by political science
Prffesrs ad sdes frm he Law facl )siias Prims a he
Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
e-
e-Proceeding of papers represents online journal of social and political science and
is published one - three times a year.

The views of the authors do not reflect the views of the Macedonian Political Science Forum.
Texts in multiple languages- Footnotes - Bibliography, 174 pages

,
.
/
02/ 3181 571
, 174
MPF - Skopje, Goce Delcev Blvd, 9-b 1000 Skopje

/Law faculty Iustiiaus Primus /
+389 2 3181 571
mpfskopje@gmail.com
e-Proceeding of Papers
iii
e-
/ Editorial Board
- 5 - VOL
o Marjan Vuchkovikj, M.Sc, President
. o Ivanka Dodovska, PhD
. o Dragan Gocevski, PhD
o Simona Trajkovska, M.Sc
o Andrej Bozinovski, M.Sc
o Ivana Atanasovska, M.Sc
o Xhenur Iseni, MA
iv
e-
.
1997
18
,
,
- 5 - VOL
e-
PREFACE
- 5 - VOL
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,
MACEDONIAN POLITICAL SCIENCE FORUM
Marjan Vuchkovikj, M.Sc.
President
vi
e-
- 5 - VOL
vii
e-
- 5 - VOL
. -
-
. -

. -
26
Jelena Trajkovska - Hristovska, PhD

Control of constitutionality and legality by constitutional courts and
principles of organization of powers
. -

77
. -
95
62
126

145
viii
e-
- 5 - VOL
ix
e-
. -
- 5 - VOL
1.01
327(497.7:495)19323.1(497.7):32719-
Abstract
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.
Key words: Morgentay, Republic of Macedonia, Republic of

Greece, philosophy
e-
- 5 - VOL
1.
,
1,
?
.2
2.
4,
5,
,
,
7.
Mgea (. J., Scientific Man Versus Power Politics, University

of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1946; Morgentau H. J., Politics among Nations: the Struggle for
Power and Peace, Ne k, Kf,
; 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.
Smith S., Uvod v mednarodne odnose, Fakulteta za druzhbene

vede, Ljbljaa,
,
. 205.
3
A.,
,
,
,
.
,
1
,,
. ,
-
. 1045).
. .
.
. .
. .,
e-
8,
3.
10.
(
-
- 1492) ,
op.
cit.,
,
/
.
.
,
na
. ,
, op. cit.,
(
8
. ,
. ,
. ,
,
,
, op. cit., . ,
, op. cit.,
(
-
. 169).
, ,
, op. cit,
- . .
,
,
, op. cit.,
/
- 5 - VOL
, op. cit.,
,
.
.
,
http:///www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/32323/Nans-Morgentau#ref160263).
10
:
?
e-
12,
,
,
11
3).
:
,
. .
?,
, op. cit.,
,a
,
. 66).
11
4.
12
- 5 - VOL
,
(427 -
.,
,
.
,
. .
,
(
. ,
.
,
, op. cit.,
. 327).
. ,
e-
14
,
,
-
.15
13
13
14,
5.
- 5 - VOL
525).
15 Grotius H., Svobodno morje, Ljubljana, str. 57.
,
, op. cit.,
. ,
e-
- 5 - VOL
6.
.
/
.16
17
.18
,
/
,
.19
7.
.20
16
Inkeles A., Interdependance: Myth and Reality, World Politics, Vol.
26, October 1973: Inkeles A., he Emerging Social tructure 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
.
,
,
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/michael_de_montaigne)
.,
,
,
,
. 162).
19 Op. cit.
20
,
,
,
,
,
, op. cit., . ,
.
.
e-
argumentum ad verecundiam
,
argumentum ad rem
- 5 - VOL
1.
21
/
,
.
.22
2.
in concreto,
/
21
petitio principi
,
.
,
/
,
.
22 Benko V., Znanost o mednarodnih odnosih, Fakulteta za druzhbene vede, Ljubljana, str.
63.
e-
- 5 - VOL
.
?
.
3.
,
.23
4.
...)
24
25.
:
.
.?
.
23
Op. cit.
24
(Aristotel, dushi, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1996,

. ).
25 Aristotel, Nikomahova etika, Slovenska matica, Ljubljana, 2002;
,
I, II III,
,
,
,
Politics by
Aristotle, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html.
e-
.
.
,
,
- 5 - VOL
;
9
e-
- 5 - VOL
.
26;
.27
26
.
60).
27
4.000
26
, op. cit.,
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3800?msg=welcome_stranger)
(vidi na http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypOtX1kEo8U.
,
.
.
,
.
10
e-
- 5 - VOL
.28
.29
28
29
.
.
?.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
Pei E., Zunanja politika, Center

za evropsko prihodnost, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in
umetnosti, Ljubljana, 2010, str. 410).

,
- 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 dvee d`avi e i d eabla,
aive ek ave d e dela i av{i dedbi
edvid
adle` a
Me|unarodniot sud na pravdata za site razliki {to }e proizlezat vo tekot na nejzinoto
sproveduvawe i tolkuvawe, osven onie vo vrska s ie a RM ; ek a Sglaa
vidi go vo Slu`ben Vesnik a RM, b. /
,
. )).

11
e-
:
;
31
.30
,
.31
30
;
.
.
/
- 5 - VOL
;
,
(Grotius H., op. cit., str. 70).
12
e-
,
,
- 5 - VOL
.
,
:
,
;
,
13
e-
,
-
.32
;
.
- 5 - VOL
,
/
.33
dominandi -
ai
32
Benko V., op. cit.,
33
cit.,
. 64-66.
, op.
.
14
e-
- 5 - VOL
ai diadi.
.
.
.34
1.
34
35
Benko V., . ci.,

O. ci.,
. .
35;
/
/
. 68.
15
e-
/
/
,
21-
- 5 - VOL
,
.
.36
,
,
.37
,
36
37
Machiavelli N., Politika in morala, Slovenska matica, Ljubljana, 1990,

Op. cit.
. 107.
16
e-
- 5 - VOL
;
;
17
e-
.
,
!!!
?
.
- 5 - VOL
.
.
18
e-
.
,
,
,
... .38
- 5 - VOL
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/setDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP+TEXT+TA+P6-TA2009-0213+0+DOC+XML+VO//EN
38
19
e-
39,
40.
41.
- 5 - VOL
http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930618d.htm.
http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u
.htm.
41
Petrushevska T.,
Skaric S., Apasiev D., Patchev V., The

Name Issue: Greece and Macedonia, Matica Makedonska, Skopje, 2009,
. 250 et. seq.
39
40
20
e-
44.
,
,
43.
42.
- 5 - VOL
45
ius cogens
46,
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/142/16841.pdf.
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;
. .,
,
,
, 2009,
. 127 et. seq..
44
,
,
(
Accordance with
the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independance in Respect of Kosovo
(Request
for
Advisory
Opinion),
http://www.icjcij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&case=141&3=4.
45
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;
. ., op. cit.,
.
et. seq.
46
Simma B. (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: a Commentary,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994,
.
et. seq.
42
43
21
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
,
47.
!!!
infra legem
48
49.
j cge
, . ., op. cit.,
49
47
contra legem.
contra legem. ,
48
Sia B., . ci.,
e. e.
, op. cit.,
22
e-

50.
,
.
.51
- 5 - VOL
.
-
?
,
. ., op. cit.,
,
51
50
jus dispositivum).
.
(Morgenthau H. J., Politics ..., op. cit.,
. 468-469).
23
e-
/
(ultra vires .
ius cogens52:
(Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties),
ius cogens
52
Simma B., op. cit.,

. .,
,
,
,
.
53
- 5 - VOL
53
24
e-
- 5 - VOL
25
e-
. -
. -
- 5 - VOL
1.01
32(495:497.7)18/19 (091)
Abstract
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
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,
eligi ad he cieia b hich bee ve" he Geek,
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.
Key words: Ottoman empire, Greece, ottoman Macedonia, Megali

idea.
26
e-
- 5 - VOL
X)X
))
X)X
;
,
,
,
;
. (ele Gardikas Katsiadakis, Greece and the
Balkan imbroglio: Greek foreign policy, Ahe,
,
. .
54
-1481).
.54
27
e-
)),
.56
.57
, . .
.55
- 5 - VOL
;
,
,
,
.
;
.,
,
. -7.
56 Richad Clgg, The Geek Mille i he Oa Eie , Christians and Jews in
Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Ne k ad Ld,
,
185-207.
57
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
(1204-1940),
,
,
.
,
55
the
.
.
.
.
28
e-
,
.
,
,
,
,
58
.58
59
- 5 - VOL
. .
.59
,
,
...,
,
.
-120.
29
e-
.60
61
60
. .
,
.
X)X
.63
63
62
62.
61
- 5 - VOL
,
,
,
,
-1
. - ,
,
.
.
,
,
,
30
e-
.64
.65
,
X)X
67
.
,
,
...,
66
66
,
.
64
.67
65
- 5 - VOL
,
,
...,
X)X
31
e-
,
,
.71
.70
68
69
70
71
X)X
,
,
-37.
,
. .
, . .
.69
,
68
- 5 - VOL
32
e-
. .
,
.
,
.
X)X
- 5 - VOL
33
e-
.72
X)X
.
,
.73
H. Gardikas Katsiadakis, Greece and the Balkan imbroglio...,

,
X)X
,
,
,
,
.
74
,
X)X
10.
72
,
.74
73
- 5 - VOL
. .
XV)))
,
34
e-
.75
,
,
,
-
.76
76
77
. .
.
75
X)X
- 5 - VOL
.77
,
...,
,
,
35
e-
.
,
,
.
,
,
- 5 - VOL
36
e-
.78
.81
79
80
.
. .
.80
81
75, 101-121.
. .
,
,
78
.79
- 5 - VOL
-1904,
,
...,
.
.

,
. .
X)X
X)X, 121.
;
,
37
e-
.
,
- 5 - VOL
.82
X)X
83,
82
83
,
.
-1903),
,
.
,
, . ,
,
,
,
,
. .
,
,
38
e-
, . .
.84
- 5 - VOL
. .
.85
.86
86
84
85
. .
.
,
,
. .
:
,
,
-1881,
. .
,
.
-25.
39
e-
.87
.
87
,
,
, 1903-1904,
.
.
,
,
- 5 - VOL
40
e-
. -4.
,
,
88
.89
89
.88
- 5 - VOL
, 1935,
41
e-
,
, .
.92
, . .
,
,
91 .
,
92

.
,
90
, . .
.90
.91
- 5 - VOL
, 1987,
...,
. .
.

(1904-
42
e-
- 5 - VOL
.94
.93
,
.95
X)X
.
96,
95
96
.
.
93
. .
94
...,
...,
.
.
,
,
,
,
43
e-
.97
- 5 - VOL
.98
.99
97
,
98
XXX)X,
99 .
. - ,
,
.
.
. .
,
;
.
, .
44
e-
,
,
.100
,
100
- 5 - VOL
-1903),
,
),
...,
,
,
-85.
:
,
45
e-
.101
.102
- 5 - VOL
.103
,
101
102
44-57.
103
.
. . .
,
-
...,
...,
,
.
46
e-
. .
X)X
.
.
.105
.
.
...,
.104
105
104
- 5 - VOL
X)X,
47
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
,
.106
.107
,
.
.
.
, . .
107
106
...,
X)X,
. .
48
e-
,
.
110
,
,
,
.
108
.110
109
.108
.109
- 5 - VOL
,
:
.
,
,
.
49
e-
.111
. .
2007,
.
,
-223.
113
112
113
.112
111
, . .
X)X
- 5 - VOL
. 331.
,
;
,
50
e-
,
.
.114
116
117
118
114
. .
.117
115
116,
.115
- 5 - VOL
.
-1905),
...,
118
. 301.

,
,
, 1926,
.
.
,
,
).
);
. .
51
e-
.119
121,
.122
,
.
...,
,
,
:
,
,
121
120
122
120
. .
.
,
.
[
119
- 5 - VOL
. .]
.
,
...,
52
e-
.123
,
.
,
,
. .
124
123
.124
- 5 - VOL
. .,
, ))/
,
. .
53
e-
. .
.125
- 5 - VOL
.126
.
,
. , . .
.
Michali Kaliaka, ) Dagi ad Machiaveli : Aed ggle, agada
and hellenization in Macedonia and Thrace (1903, Journal of Modern Greek
Studies, vle , be , a
,
. .
125
126
54
e-
- 5 - VOL
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
55
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
.127
127
.
,
...,
56
e-
- 5 - VOL
.
.
.
57
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
.
1904-
58
e-
- 5 - VOL
Helen Gardikas Katsiadakis, Greece and the Balkan imbroglio: Greek foreign
policy, Athens, 1995.
,
-1912);
,
,
.
Michalis Kaliakatsos, ) Dagi ad Machiaveli : Aed ggle,
propaganda and hellenization in Macedonia and Thrace (1903, Journal
of Modern Greek Studies, volume 31, number 1, may 2013.

,
;
,
,
.
,
);
03-1905),
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,

,
,
.
,
,
.

,
,
,
,
.
. .
,
,
.
,
:
,
, 1996.
,
,
,
.
,
-1903),
,
1977.
,
,
,
),
,
.
,
;
,
, . XXX)X,
.

,
;
,
,
.

.
,

(1904,
:
,
,
.

.
,

,
,
.
,

,
,
1935.
,
,
,
,
.
,

,
-1904,
,
.
-1881,
,
1993.
,
:
,
,
,
,
.
,
,

, . ,
,
.
59
e-
,
,
1998.
,
X)X
, 2014.
- 5 - VOL
-1904,
-
-1903),
;
X)X
,
.
,
,
,
,
XV)))
X)X
,
,
:
,
,
X)X
. -2,
.
.
-
,
:
,
,
,
.

.
,
-1940),
,
.
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.
.,
,
.
60
e-
- 5 - VOL
61
e-
Jelena TRAJKOVSKA - HRISTOVSKA, Phd
- 5 - VOL
Law faculty Iustinianus Primus

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University - Skopje
1.02 Scientific review
347.991.078.3(100)
CONTROL OF CONSTITUTIONALITY AND LEGALITY

BY CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS AND PRINCIPLES OF
ORGANISATION OF POWERS
Abstract
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
havig he aibe gaa f he Cii ih he
legislation body.
Key words: Constitutionality, control, power, courts
62
e-
- 5 - VOL
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
aibe gaa f he Cii 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
f i be cideed a baic idea, geeal bjecivi ad
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.
63
e-
- 5 - VOL
ca f he de legal e
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.
) e f he Kele Aia del f cl f
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
h.
. .
64
e-
- 5 - VOL
Kelsen's argument according to which "the idea of separation of

powers to different bodies is realised not so much for their mutual
ilai, b f hei al cl
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
ieed ad he ciial c. The fea f new
seaai f wes which provided a possibility for secure
positioning of the courts in the process of policy creation is more
justifiable today.
Ulike he Kele Eea del f cl f he
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
.
h.
.
.
.
.
the views of Bishop Benjamin Hoadly are still relevant according to
hich The h have he able ahi iee he ie la ae
he e h ae a eal vide f he la, he ei h fi e i , a
well as the view of Jh Redlf accdig hich he ahi h ha he
right to decide on the validity of the laws without any right to complain is the
eal veeig. See Judicial review unmasked. Thomas. J. Higgins.
Massachusetts. 1981. p. 53
131Today
65
e-
- 5 - VOL
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
he ie f a hee eal ad igial iei f
introduction of control of constitutionality, as well as whether the

c hld have ahiai iee
ichiev
phrases of the Constitution, which ill el i

eac,
jdicial lic-akig,
jdicial
jdicial legilai ,
today makes the literature of the Supreme Court of the United

Sae eflec he icile f agig bll .132
The fear of idealisation of the bave ew wld 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 f he ai in the
ae f ecciliai f he cl f he ciiali
by the constitutional courts with the rule of people, i.e. the will of
he legilaive bd
133.
Bickel "he f he ai aji ble" baed
(ail hei ha caed all ae bache, jdicia i

he eake bach
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
66
e-
- 5 - VOL
Supreme court as guardian of the Constitution. The emphasis of
the political function of the Supreme Court of United States has

ceal ii i Bickel he f jdicial veillace he
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-aji ae, h akig i devia
institution of the system. By establishing the unconstitutionality of

the laws and other acts of the legislative and executive power, the
See C e he ill f he ciie eeeaive a
given historical moment, which at the worst means that it acts not
in the name of the majority, but against its will. However, its
he f ai-aji ble
fid jification 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
vale, ad he fc f hei iee i he
iediate
benefit"135, the court has greater responsibility since it acts on

long-term basis. He looks for the exit from the majority problem,
f hich i adi ha i i accdace ih he hea f he
decac i he eci f he eae vale 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
ealiai
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
67
e-
- 5 - VOL
Theefe, if he Cii eee a bl f the nation,

its continuity, unity and common purpose, the role of the court is
bjecif ha bl
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 ill e ha he
ia elee f he Bickel hilh ad he ke f
understanding of the entire his opus is his faith in the value of the
hghfle ad caefle a liical ad jdicial vie
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
aeaace f he cial ieiali , i ee ha he Bickel
theory mobilized the academic community in USA to focus its

study on the so-called he ew seaai f wes .
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
eaai f e". ,, The e eaai f e
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
68
e-
- 5 - VOL
juristocracy and the court activism. Namely, the historical facts

ha USA had eid he he eake bach i he e f
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
de ahlg f he e ad eff f i avidace
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
ld geeae cici eve a he hgh f he ciie
providing the directions of action to their representatives, and

then eecig f he eeeaive ealie he
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
hei ha he he See C declae he la he ac f
the selected executive as unconstitutional, it prevents the will of

he ciie eeeaive ad ef a cl i he
ae f he aji, b agai i
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
69
e-
- 5 - VOL
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
gad he iee f he ciie a fa a We the people ae

reengaged in the constitutional policy.
Driven by the abovementioned, we establish that the

American constitutional and legal he, aig f The
Fedealis Paes 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
hei ill ickle he Aeica legal dcie, alhgh he bai
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

k f he fdig fahe .
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
70
e-
- 5 - VOL
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
ciiali b he ciial c ae a cheig

g . Sch adeae gadai a be ee f he ic
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
hich he i f e i l a aial icile ad
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

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
143The
71
e-
beacaie
144,
- 5 - VOL
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
h,
..
Quoted from
h.
.
.
. .
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
.
h.
.
.
. .
145
72
e-
- 5 - VOL
The Swiss model of control of the constitutionality represents

most adequate proof of this thesis. Namely, this sui generis model
eee eal
laba" f echai, li ad
instruments by which the control of the constitutionality is

ealied. ) ee ha he i f diffee li ad he
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/LWBAndreasLienhard. pdf
147 Implemented in the time of creation of Switzerland in 1848, the
parliamentary control of the constitutionality is performed by the Federal
Aebl a ee bd f he ae ahiie ad ee gadia f
he Cii . Alhgh he le 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
73
e-
- 5 - VOL
constitutionality by the constitutional court. It is considered that

the system incorporates the role of creator of the constitution,
ice b he k f he Fedeal C a igifica liical
function is performed, therefore in certain sense it appears as a
ci
148,
as well as the role to eai he field f he
positivism". The skilfulness of the Swiss constitutor in terms of

this issue, probably is most apparent in the historical fact that the
del vide elee ilael f icl fced
disputes as well, and it is also adequate for the settlement of

lceic die icldig ed iee f ide age
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
74
e-
Bibliography
- 5 - VOL
Ackerman Bruce. The new separation of powers. Harvard Law

Review. No 3 Vol. 113. January 2000
Alexander Bickel`s Philosophy of Prudence. Antony Townsend
Ka. The ale La Jal. Vl. . .
.
.
.
.
2006.
Judicial Review, History,And Democracy: An Introduction. Leonard
W. Lev.
. 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. Sveei ksicialia i ,, va diba vlasi.
Zbornik radova
Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu.4/2009.
.
. ))
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
h
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
75
e-
- 5 - VOL
76
e-
. -
1. 0 1
- 5 - VOL
316:74:165.723
Abstract
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.
Key words: Human rights, Cultural relativism, tradition, religion,

civilization, borders.
77
e-
- 5 - VOL
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
78
e-
.
.
,
,
- 5 - VOL
.
,
79
e-
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
- 5 - VOL
.
80
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
.
.149
(ilde (a, Uiveal (a Righ ad Clal Divei, A evie f

(a igh , Le Riee,
2000, p.259.
149
81
e-
- 5 - VOL
.150
,
,
,
:
,
.
.151
150
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Johannes Morsink,The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: origins,
drafting, and intent,
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1999The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, . .
151
82
e-
- 5 - VOL
.152
,
.
.153
152
153
World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 1425 June 1993, I. 5.
,
,
,
,
,
..303
83
e-
- 5 - VOL
.
.
,
,
,
.
prima facie
.
.
,
84
e-
.154
?
.
.
.
- 5 - VOL
.
154
Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice Relativity and
Universality: a Necessary Tension, Cornell University Press, Ithaca andLondon,
2003 p.90
85
e-
.
.
.155
.156
,
- 5 - VOL
155
Jack Donnelly,Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice,p. 91.

Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, International human rights in
context, Oxford
University Press, Third Edition 2008, New York p. 366.
156
86
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
.
,
.
,
.
87
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
,
.157
157
Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, International human rights in

context, p. 367.
88
e-
- 5 - VOL
.
.
.158
,
,
158
.
,
.
.
.159
.
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.4344.
89
e-
,
,
.161
.
.
.160
,
,
- 5 - VOL
.
.
,
160
Eva Brems, Human Rights: Universality and Diversity, (The Hague- Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, 2001) p.88.
161
: Xiag Li, Asian Values and the Universality of Human Rights,
(USA,University of Maryland, 1996) p.1823.
90
e-
,
.
- 5 - VOL
. 162
162
Adamantia Polis, Peter Schwab, Human Rights new Perspectives, New

realities, (London Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), p.3.
91
e-
,
.
- 5 - VOL
92
e-
- 5 - VOL
:
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
.
,
,
,
,
8.Xiaorong Li, Asian Values and the Universality of Human
Rights, (USA,University of Maryland, 1996
:
1.World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 1425 June 1993
:
1. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
93
e-
- 5 - VOL
94
e-
- 5 - VOL
. -
1.02

347.67(37:497.7)
Abstract
Thi ae ceal ic i he geei 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.
(avig i id he fac ha hi ae bjec 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.
Keywords: testamentary succession, principles of testamentary
succession, testament
95
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
?...
,
,
,
-
mortis causa
.
,
,
Institutiones
Digesta.
e,
pater familias
.
163
163Iul.
D. 50,17,62. Hereditas nihil aliudest, quam successio in universum is quod

defunctushabuerit
96
e-
167
.(
.
:
.
). 21
Sa aki. Dagljb Pvi.Veliki pravni
sistemi i kodifikacije.(Begad: )davaka ka Dagai .
)
165
:
,
,
.
?
.
:
,
,
-223
166
.
:
,
.
.
.
:
,
,
711
167Testamentum,
Lex XII
Tabullarum
).244-
.
166
164
,
,
165
164
- 5 - VOL
97
e-
- 5 - VOL
168
(testamentum)
proprietas)
(emptiovenditio)
.
,
.
.
.
168
,
:
,
.
,
), 232.
, .
98
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
,
,
Gai.
(intutu personae).
2,
97
Videamusitaquenuncquibusmodis
per
universitatem res nobisadquirantur. 98. Si cui heredesfactisumus. ..

eius res ad nos transeunt
...
,
99
e-
- 5 - VOL
169
,
170
..
...
169
. .
171
damnosahereditas
heredes(neredesnecessarii)
,
.
...
. .
sui
170
171
100
e-
- 5 - VOL
172
.
,
173
numerusclausus
.
,
172
173XII
. .
pl.
5,
4.
Si
intestatomoritur
,
qui
suusheresnecescit,
adgnatusproximusfamiliamhabeto; 5, 5 siadgnatusnecescit gentiles familiam
(habento)
suus
, famila
101
e-
- 5 - VOL
174
inter vivos,
post mortem175.
174
175
,
.
102
e-
- 5 - VOL
176
177
nemopartimtestatus, partimintestausdecederepotest178,
,
179
176
177
,
.
2013,3- .
, op.cit.223-225
178
I. 2, 14, 5. Nequeenim idem
intestatusdecederepotest, nisi sit miles
179
ex
parte
testatus
et
,
,
ex
,
,
parte
103
e-
- 5 - VOL
mortem.
post
180
heredisinstitutio181,
Gai. 2, 229. Caput

etfundamentumintellegiturtotiustestametiheredisinstitutio.
182
,testamentifactioactiv ,
180Testamentumestvoluntasnostraeiustasentetntia
de eo quod quis post mortem

suamfierivelit.Modestinus, D.28,1,1
181Institutioheredisest caput et fundamentumtestamenti
182
,
. /
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
104
e-
183
Lex XII tabularum,
184
iusabutenti,
mortis causa,
testamentumcalatiscomitiis,
185
heres esse.
,
184
185
183
- 5 - VOL
,
:
105
e-
- 5 - VOL
186
.
,
.
,
186
. .
106
e-
187
,
.
vivos
188
-95),
188
187
- 5 - VOL
mortis causa.
,
inter
-
107
e-
- 5 - VOL
testamentifactioactiva);
.
(animus testandi)
Testamentifactioactiva,
iuscommercii189
.
.
,
sui iurs
189civesromani
,
.
108
e-
- 5 - VOL
190
192
191
.lucidaintervalla,
,
lucidaintervalla193.
,
190
191
192
193
, op.cit., 518-519
.
. Ibid
.
,
109
e-
- 5 - VOL
.
,
.
,
. ,
194
,
.
194
, testamentifactioactiva
,
.
110
e-
animus testandi.
- 5 - VOL
195
195
,
,
111
e-
- 5 - VOL
. .
196
,
.
197
197
, testamentumcalatiscomitiis,
196
.
.
inter vivos.
112
e-
- 5 - VOL
198
.
:
198
199
199
,
,
.
.
,
.
113
e-
,
.
- 5 - VOL
.
,
,
114
e-
- 5 - VOL
,(ad solemnitatem)
.
,
,
.
:
,
115
e-
- 5 - VOL
testamentum in procintu200 (
testamentummilitis
;
testamentumholographum
testamentumallographum
.
(testamentumtriperitium);
testamentumapudactaconditum
testamentumprincipi
(iudici)
oblatum
testamentumnuncupativum.
prcingere,
200
201
,
Ante
Romac.
pravo, ageb:Bibliekadbeiciikia,1981), 371-372.
,
. op.cit. 292
201
,
Rimsko
in procintu.
116
e-
- 5 - VOL
.
,
202
203
testamentifactiopassiva,
nemopartimtestatus,
partimintestatusdecederepotest204.
I.2, 14, 5. Nequeenim idem ex parte testatuset ex parte

intestatusdecederepotest, nisi sit miles.
,
,
202Faciuntigiturtestamentaquomodovolent,faciuntquomodopoterint,
sufficiatqueadbonorumsuaorumdivisionemfaciendamnudavoluntastestato
ris
203
testamentummilitis
204
117
e-
- 5 - VOL
205
206
207
205
206
207
208
.
.
.
,
208
de legeferenda,
, op.cit 292
-
118
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
.
209
testamentumapudactaconditum
testamentumprincipioblatum
,
(iudicioblatum)210.
Testamentumnuncupativum
211
212
unitasactus
209
210
211
212Testes
rogati
119
e-
- 5 - VOL
213
testamentumholographum
testamentumallographum
(testamentumtriperitium)
214
215
,
213
214
, op.cit. 183
,triperitium,
iuscivile ( unitasactus), ius
215Testamentumalographum
honorarium(
subscriptio
op.cit.255
120
e-
216
217
218
,
,
,
- 5 - VOL
post mortem219.
216
testamentummysticum,
217
218
219
.
.
.
.
. Ibid
:
, op.cit 63-68
121
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
,
iusaccrescendi,
beneficiumabstinendi,
beneficiuminventarii,
beneficiumseparationis,
,
,
,
,
122
e-
- 5 - VOL
Berger, Adolf. Eccl edic Dicia f Ra 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
,
.
,.
.
.
,
:
,
.
Bjkli, ika. Forum Romanum Rimskadrzava, pravo,
religijaimitologija.
:
,

,
.
,
.
,
.
:
,
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.
.
47/1996
.
18/2001
,
,
,
.
:
.
,
..
,
Moyle, J.B. The Institutes of Justinian. New Jersey: The Lawbook
Exchange, Union, 2002
:
123
e-
- 5 - VOL
Nicholas, Barry. An Introduction to Roman Law- Clarendon Law

Series; Oxford University Press; Oxford - 1962 (Hardback), 1975
(Papaerback).
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
:
,
.
-
,
.
:
,
.
-
,
,
.
)V
.
:
,
,
.
-
.
.
.
.
:
,
,
Romac,
A.
Rimskopravo.Zagreb:
PFZ
Biblioteka:
Udbeiciikia 1981
,
.
,
:
,
,
.
.
:
,
2011
,
.
,
.
?
.
:
,
.
.
.
,
Stein, Peter. Roman Law in European History. Cambridge:
University Press, 199
Horvat ,Marijan. Rimskopravo deeidaje . ageb: klka
knjiga,1980
aac, Mirela. davk Li, Rimsko privatno pravo
Sarajevo:Pravni fakultet u Sarajevu, 2006
aki, Sa. Dagljb Pvi.Veliki pravni sistemi i
kodifikacije.Begad: )davaka ka Dagai .
124
e-
- 5 - VOL
125
e-
- 5 - VOL
. -
1.01
341.95-053.2(4-672
Abstract
The child habial eidece 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.
Key words: European Union, law aspects, children, cases
126
e-
.220
,
,
- 5 - VOL
221
220
.
, 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)
127
e-
.222
- 5 - VOL
.223
habituelle, habitual residence)

gewhnlicher
Aufenthalt.224
.
residence
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
. Vaadi T., Bda B.,Keevi G., i Pavi

V., Mead iva av, Begad,
, .
.
.
128
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
.,
animussimper
.225
Vivendi,
(animusresidendi).226
225loc.cit
226
Cameron
Ross
,
,
. Cameronv. Cameron 1996 SC 17)
,
Cameronv.
129
e-
- 5 - VOL
.227
Cheshire,
North Fawcett
Scarman
Barnet London Borough Council, exp Shah228
,
.229
.
.
.
Shah v. Barnet London Borough [ 1983] 2 AC 309 at 342
229CheshireJM, NorthP. and Fawcett JJ, Private International Law, Oxford
University Press, 2008,
.
227
228
130
e-
230.
.231
, Federv.Feder-Evans232
- 5 - VOL
(Borrs)233
Swaddlingv.
AdjudicationOfficer234
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
131
e-
- 5 - VOL
.235
Nessav Chief Adjudication Officer236,
.237
,
;
235
Stone P., The concept of Habitual residence , op.cit., 347

[1999] 1 WLR 1937 (HL)
237 Stone P., The concept of Habitual residence ,op.cit., . 347
236
132
e-
- 5 - VOL
.238
A (Case C-523/07)(2009) ECR I-2805

.
/
.
,
,
Nh P.M. ad Face J.J., Chehie ad Nh Pivae )eaial La,

12 edn. London, 1992, 166, 167
238
133
e-
.
.
. -
- 5 - VOL
, -
,
134
e-
- 5 - VOL
Communitylaw),
,
?
.239
,
,
,
.240
,
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
239
135
e-
.241
- 5 - VOL
...
.
...
242
243,
A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805

.33
A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805
.42
243 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805
.37
244
. A (CaseC-523/07) (2009) ECRI-2808

.36)
.244
241
242
136
e-
- 5 - VOL
.245
.246
.247
.248
245
A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805
246
.36
ECRI-2805
.38
247 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805
248 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805
.39
. 40
.A (CaseC-523/07) (2009)
137
e-
.249
.250
.251
...
252
.253
.254
(INCADAT)
- 5 - VOL
A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2805

.41
29
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,
,
.
249
250
138
e-
255
.256
,
,
,
,
.
.56
A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2808
257 A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2808
256
BarbaraMercerdiv. RichardChaffe (CaseC-497/10 PPU)
.257
255
- 5 - VOL
,
,
. 41
. 42
139
e-
.258
,
,
,
.
.260
.43.
A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2808

9(1)
.259
258
- 5 - VOL
.
, 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.
.
,
.
140
e-
262;
263
. (Case C/ PPU
.
A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-
55
.263
10(b)
.47,
262
(i)
(iv)
A (Case C-523/07) (2009) ECR I-2808
PPU)
.53
261
261
- 5 - VOL
(Case C-497/10
141
e-
- 5 - VOL
.
,
,
.
142
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
,
INDICAT
.
,
143
e-
- 5 - VOL
144
e-
- 5 - VOL
1.01

323.15(=163.3:497-194.2)
Abstract
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.
Key words: Council of Europe, law, human rights, minorities
145
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
.
264
265
264
Marc Weller, Introduction: The Outlook for the Protection of Minorities in

Wider Europe,
Mak Welle, Deika Blacklck, Kaheie Nbb ed. , The
Protection of Minorities in Wider Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, pp.1-7.
265
.,
146
e-
- 5 - VOL
.266
.267
,
,
,
.
:
http://www.australianmacedonianweekly.com/edition/1124_18052010/070_
english.html
266
: Anna Triandafyllidou, Naial )dei ad he Ohe , 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.
147
e-
- 5 - VOL
268
.269
.271
.270
.
,
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.
148
e-
.272
- 5 - VOL
.273
.274
.275
...
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.
149
e-
- 5 - VOL

.276
279
.280
.278
277
,
,
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
,
,
.
.
,
.
:
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.
150
e-

...
- 5 - VOL
.281
282
283
.284
.285
281
Ibid, paragraph 37.

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
Ilinden and others v. Bulgaria (Application no. 59491/00), Judgment of 19
January 2006.
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.
282
284
151
e-
- 5 - VOL
...
...
...
...
...
...
.
,
.286
.
,
....
...
.287
.,
286
Ibid, paragraph 47.

Ilinden and Ivanov vs. Bulgaria (Application no. 44079/98), 20 October 2005,
Strasbourg, paragraph 114.
287
152
e-
- 5 - VOL
288
,
,
.289
290
,
,
.291
288
290
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.
Ilinden Pirin and others vs. Bulgaria
(Application 59489/00), 20 October
2005, Strasbourg, paragraph 62.
291

Ilinden and others v. Bulgaria (Application no. 59491/00), Judgment of 19
January 2006, paragraph 81.
153
e-
- 5 - VOL
aeciai
agi f
.292
.293
292
.294
,
,
: 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
.
: Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Supervision of the
Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 4 th Annual Report
2010, 2011, p. 29.
154
e-
- 5 - VOL
.295
.296
,
,
295
: Nicholas Sitaropoulos, Implementation of the European Court of

(a Righs Jdges Cceig Naial Miiies Wh Declaa
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.
155
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
,
.297
domaine
rserv.
298
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
156
e-
- 5 - VOL
300
.301
.302
.
.
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. Cbe, S.
Wheatley (eds.), Mii Righs i he New Ee, Martunus Nijhoff
Publishers, Hague, 1999, p. 63.
302
: Paick Thbe, An Unfinished Story of Minority Rights,
Aa
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.
157
e-
- 5 - VOL
.303
.
,
.304
305
,
,
: Seceaia f he Faek Cvei f he Peci f

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.
303
158
e-
.306
306
.307
.
.
308
.309
,
.
- 5 - VOL
.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
Albania adopted on 29 May 2008, 1 December 2008, ACFC/OP/II(2008)008, p.
10
307
: )bid, aagah 177-185, pp. 31-32.
308
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
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
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.
159
e-
.311
.312
,
.313
311
- 5 - VOL
.314
Ibid, paragraphs 218-228, p. 40.

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
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.
312
160
e-
.316
- 5 - VOL
.315
.318
319
.317
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 Mii i Kovo, Community Profile: Kosovo Gorani, 2010,
pp. 5-11.
317
: Ccil f Ee, European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages and Explanatory Report, Strasbourg, 1993, paragraph 11.
318

. .
.,
. .
.
,
:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=148&CM=8&
DF=&CL=ENG
319
: Eea Chae f Regial ad Mii Lagage, Sebia
Initial Periodical Report Presented to the Secretary General of the Council of
161
e-
.320
- 5 - VOL
,
,
.,
,
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.
162
e-
- 5 - VOL

,
.321
,
.
.323
322
omoyenis
alloyenis ,
.324
,
,
: Eea Cii Agai Raci ad )leace, 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
: Nichla Sial, 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.
321
163
e-
- 5 - VOL
325
.326
.327
2,5
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.
164
e-
- 5 - VOL
.329
.328
330
.331
,
328
Supra note 61, p. 39.

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,
Qesi f he Ciies ,
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.
329
165
e-
- 5 - VOL
.332
,
.333
a
.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
.
.
,
/
.
: 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.
166
e-
- 5 - VOL
.
,
167
e-
- 5 - VOL
,
.
,
,
,
,
168
e-
- 5 - VOL
(omoyenis
alloyenis
169
e-
- 5 - VOL
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 )dei ad he Ohe , 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,
Raie Babck, Eva Ebll, Kee Geedijk, (aald
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. Kaleki 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
(a Righs Jdges Cceig Naial Miiies Wh
Declaratory Adjudications does not Help, European Society of
International Law, Tallinn Research Forum 26-28 May 2011,
Conference Paeprs No.4/2011.
170
e-
- 5 - VOL
12. Nicholas Sitaropoulos, Discriminatory Denationalizations based

on Ethnic Origin: The Dark Legacy of Ex Art. 19 of the Greek
Nationality Code,
P. Sha, F. Meki ed. , Migai,
Diasporas and Legal Systems in Europe, Routledge Cavendish,
London, 2006, pp. 107-125.
13. P. Cumber, S. Wheatley (eds.), Mii Righs i he 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
Qesi f he Ciies , 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.
171
e-
- 5 - VOL
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).
5.
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.
Third Report Submitted by Albania pursuant to Article 25,
National Minorities, 10 January 2011, Strasbourg.
172
e-
6.
7.
8.
9.
- 5 - VOL
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.
Second Report Submitted by Serbia pursuant to Article 25,
National Minorities, 4 March 2008, Strasbourg.
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.
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) c-by-country approach: First Report on GREECE, published
by ECRI, Strasbourg, September 1997.
13. ECR) c-by-country approach: Second Report on GREECE, Adopted
on 10 December 1999, Published 27 June 2000, Strasbourg.
14. ECR) c-by-country approach: Third Report on GREECE, Adopted
on 5 December 2003, Published on 8 June 2004, Strasbourg.
15. ECR) c-by-country approach: ECRI Report on Greece (Fourth
Monitoring Cycle), Adopted on 2 April 2009, Published on 15 September,
Strasbourg.
16. ECR) c-by-country approach: Report on BULGARIA, published by
ECRI, 15 June 1998, Strasbourg.
17. ECR) c-by-country approach: Second Report on BULGARIA,
Adopted on 18 June 1999, Published 21 March 2000, Strasbourg
18. ECR) c-by-country approach: Third Report on BULGARIA,
Adopted on 27 June 2003, Published 27 January 2004, Strasbourg.
19. ECR) c-by-country approach: Report on BULGARIA (Fourth
Monitoring Cycle), Adopted on 20 June 2008, Published 24 February
2009, Strasbourg.
20. ECR) c-by-country approach: Report on ALBANIA, published by
ECRI,9 November 1999, Strasbourg.
173
e-
- 5 - VOL
21. ECR) c-by-country approach: Second Report on ALBANIA,

Adopted on 16 June 2000, Published 4 April 2001, Strasbourg.
22. ECR) c-by-country approach: Third Report on ALBANIA, Adopted
on 17 December 2004, Published 14 June 2005, Strasbourg.
23. ECR) c-by-country approach: Report on ALBANIA (Fourth
Monitoring Cycle), Adopted on 15 December 2009, Published 2 March
2010, Strasbourg.
24. ECR) c-by-country approach: Report on SERBIA, Adopted on 14
December 2007, Published 29 April 2008, Strasbourg.
25. ECR) c-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 Secial Missi Ksv
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, AntiDiscrimination Legislation in EU Member States Greece, 2002.
174

ePP Vol. 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ePP Vol. 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

e-

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

Macedonian Political Science Forum

Texts in multiple languages- Footnotes - Bibliography, 174 pages

02/ 3181 571

MPF - Skopje, Goce Delcev Blvd, 9-b 1000 Skopje

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

o Marjan Vuchkovikj, M.Sc, President

. o Ivanka Dodovska, PhD

. o Dragan Gocevski, PhD

o Simona Trajkovska, M.Sc

o Andrej Bozinovski, M.Sc

o Ivana Atanasovska, M.Sc

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

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

The forth volume of the e-Proceeding of papers encompasses

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

Jelena Trajkovska - Hristovska, PhD

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

Key words: Morgentay, Republic of Macedonia, Republic of

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

Mgea (. J., Scientific Man Versus Power Politics, University

Smith S., Uvod v mednarodne odnose, Fakulteta za druzhbene

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

(Aristotel, dushi, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1996,

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

Pei E., Zunanja politika, Center

- bilateralen dogovor sklu~en na 13. 09. 1995 g. me|u RM i RG od ministrite za

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

(Grotius H., op. cit., str. 70).

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

Benko V., op. cit.,

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

Benko V., . ci.,

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

Machiavelli N., Politika in morala, Slovenska matica, Ljubljana, 1990,

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

Skaric S., Apasiev D., Patchev V., The

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

Touval S. - Zartman J. W. (eds.), International Mediation in Theory

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

Sia B., . ci.,

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

(Morgenthau H. J., Politics ..., op. cit.,

(Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties),

Simma B., op. cit.,

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS

* * * MPF e-PROCEEDING OF PAPERS