a. Freedom of the Press
The constitution provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right. According to media and civil society organizations (CSOs), freedom of expression was undermined by an increasing number of strategic lawsuits against journalists, inappropriate conduct on behalf of public officials in their interaction with journalists, undue pressure on journalists investigating corruption, disinformation, hate speech in online and social media, and self-censorship.
The law prohibited speech inciting national, religious, or ethnic hatred and provided penalties for violations. In addition to television and social media, these restrictions covered print and broadcast media, publication of books, and online newspapers and journals. On February 28, the government amended the Law on Audio-Visual Media Services to allow government-paid “high public interest” campaigns to be advertised through commercial broadcasters. Independent media associations expressed apprehension concerning the amendments and criticized the law as a return to widespread media corruption and clientelism.
Physical Attacks, Imprisonment, and Pressure
Violence and threats of violence against journalists were a significant human rights issue. The Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM) reported multiple incidents of violence and harassment of journalists. In particular, the AJM noted an increase in violence and harassment of women journalists. Journalist Lepa Djundeva reported receiving death threats and alleged she was subjected to hate speech and a defamation campaign following a June 2 interview with a Greek official that she claimed was misrepresented online. During the first eight months of the year, the Public Prosecution Office reported two serious cases of assaults against journalists.
As of November 8, a trial was pending before the Kichevo Basic Court in the March 21 physical attack of journalist Furkan Saliu following a series of investigative stories about law enforcement operations. Saliu reported the incident to the police and subsequently, the Kichevo basic prosecutors indicted a law enforcement agent on three charges. The agent filed a criminal complaint against Saliu, which was also pending before authorities.
Censorship by Governments, Military, Intelligence, or Police Forces, Criminal Groups, or Armed Extremist or Rebel Groups
According to the AJM and other media organizations, editorial independence of the press faced challenges. Reporters Without Borders noted in its March annual report that due to strong political polarization, media came under pressure from authorities, politicians, and businessmen at both the national and local level. The report asserted the two largest political parties had created parallel media systems over which they exerted their political and economic influence. Reporters Without Borders noted the public broadcaster lacked editorial and financial independence. The report noted online media, while benefiting from greater freedom of expression, faced digital attacks and attempts to discredit journalists.
Libel and slander were civil offenses, and such laws were enforced. The government and individuals used threats of civil or criminal law to restrict public discussion or retaliate against journalists, critics, or political opponents. The AJM reported that as of September 20, four journalists were subject to strategic litigation lawsuits (SLAPPs) filed during the year by the Ministry of Interior, the Manager of commercial TV station Kanal 5, members of religious organizations, politicians, and businesspersons. From 2021 until September 17, the AJM registered 25 SLAPPs against journalists.
b. Worker Rights
Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining
The law provided for the right of workers to form and join independent unions, bargain collectively, and conduct legal strikes. The law prohibited antiunion discrimination and provided for reinstatement of workers fired for union activity. The law required federated unions to register with the Ministry of Labor and with the State Central Registry (SLI).
The law covered those working for employers that were registered with the government and did not discriminate against foreign workers or migrants who were legally employed. The law and employment contracts covered registered employees in registered establishments. Unionized employees were also covered by the collective agreements, where those agreements were signed. Unregistered employees and employers were not covered by labor laws and were subjected to charges based on the law on prohibition and prevention of unregistered activity.
Government enforcement, resources, and remediation were inadequate. In unionized sectors, the government effectively enforced laws protecting freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the right to strike for workers. Penalties for violations were commensurate with those of other laws involving the denial of civil rights. Administrative and judicial procedures were subject to lengthy delays. Penalties were regularly applied in segments controlled by the SLI.
The Ministry of Labor’s State Labor Inspectorate did not receive any complaints regarding violations of the right to freedom of association. Nonetheless, workers often feared reprisal and refrained from filing direct complaints. Some workers had unions file complaints on their behalf. Trade unions were based on voluntary membership, and activities were financed by membership dues. Approximately 22 percent of employees, mostly in public administration, were union members. Union representatives, except a few branch unions, claimed they were generally not free from the influence of government officials, political parties, and employers.
A court of general jurisdiction could terminate trade union activities at the request of the registrar or competent court when those activities were deemed to be “against the constitution and law.” There were no nationality restrictions on membership in trade unions, although foreign nationals needed a valid work permit and to be employed by the company or government body listed on the permit. Although legally permitted, no unions operated in the free economic zones.
The government and employers generally respected freedom of association, the right to strike, and the right to collective bargaining. Unions cited the law’s “exclusionary” provision, which allowed employers to terminate up to 2 percent of workers from collective bargaining negotiations during a strike. Collective bargaining was restricted to trade unions representing at least 20 percent of the employees.
Forced or Compulsory Labor
See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.
Acceptable Work Conditions
Wage and Hour Laws
The law provided for a minimum wage in all sectors; however, it was less than the official estimate for the poverty income level. The Economic Social Council, which equally represented unions, employer associations, and the government, negotiated the minimum wage. The law established a 40-hour work week with a minimum 24-hour rest period, paid vacation of 20 to 26 workdays, and sick leave benefits. Employees could not legally work more than an average of eight hours of overtime per week over a three-month period, or 190 hours per year. According to the collective agreement for the private sector between employers and unions, employees in the private sector had a right to overtime pay at 135 percent of their regular rate. In addition, the law entitled employees who worked more than 150 hours of overtime per year to a bonus of one month’s salary.
In May 2023, parliament amended the labor law’s provisions regulating maximum weekly overtime hours to facilitate and speed up construction of two new motorways, corridors 8 and 10d. The amended law enabled workers to sign labor contracts according to which they would decide whether they would work additional paid hours, without setting an upper limit. On April 3, the Constitutional Court dismissed four petitions challenging the 2023 amendments as unfounded.
Alleged violations of wage, hour, and overtime laws were common in the construction, trade and textiles industries.
Occupational Safety and Health
Occupational safety and health (OSH) standards were generally appropriate for the main industries, and employers were responsible for assessing risks their employees faced on the job. The SLI proactively identified unsafe working conditions. The law required employers to appoint an OSH officer or contract a licensed company to implement OSH standards.
Workers had the legal right to remove themselves from situations endangering their health or safety without jeopardy to their employment. Nevertheless, employees did not always exercise this right, reportedly based on fear of losing their jobs due to the high unemployment rate.
Alleged violations of OSH standards were common in the construction sector, although most accidents were connected to driving agriculture machinery.
Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement
The government did not effectively enforce minimum wage, overtime, and OSH laws, particularly in textiles and construction sectors. The SLI and the State Inspectorate for Technical Inspection were responsible for enforcing pertinent laws. Some violators received no penalties, and penalties for violations were not commensurate with those for similar crimes such as fraud or negligence.
The number of labor inspectors was adequate to investigate violations of labor law, but inspectors were not appropriately distributed throughout the country. Labor inspectors had the authority to make unannounced inspections and initiate sanctions, but uneven distribution of inspectors made it difficult to enforce compliance. The SLI had an OSH department with three regional offices, but they were understaffed and lacked adequate training and modern equipment.
The informal sector of the economy was estimated to account for approximately 21 percent of the overall economy and comprised an estimated 80,000 undeclared workers. Many workers in the informal sector were men, including young persons, as well as retired persons working in the agricultural sector. After agriculture, construction and retail commerce had the most informal workers. The government did not effectively enforce laws in the informal sector.
c. Disappearance and Abduction
Disappearance
There were no reports of enforced disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.
Prolonged Detention without Charges
The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court, as well as to receive compensation for unlawful detention. The government generally observed these requirements.
The law required a judge to issue warrants for arrest and detention of suspects based on evidence, and police generally followed this requirement. The law prohibited police from interrogating suspects without informing them of their status and their rights and enabling them to obtain a lawyer. The law required a suspect be brought promptly before a judicial officer and charged with a crime. The law stated prosecutors needed to arraign a detainee within 24 hours of arrest. A pretrial procedure judge, at the request of a prosecutor, could order detention of suspects for up to 72 hours before arraignment. Police generally adhered to these procedures. Authorities generally informed detainees promptly of the charges against them. Detention prior to indictment could last a maximum of 180 days. Following indictment, pretrial detention could last a maximum of two years.
There was a functioning bail system. In addition to bail, the law allowed the substitution of pretrial detention with house arrest or other measures for securing defendants’ presence at trial. Common measures included passport seizure, a prohibition on leaving one’s place of residence, and an obligation to report to the court on a weekly basis.
The law provided advisory deadlines to avoid protracted criminal proceedings. Prosecutors were supposed to complete investigations within six months, although these deadlines could be extended to 12 months in more complex cases and 18 months, with a supervisor’s consent, in organized crime cases. Prosecutors sometimes exceeded these deadlines, citing lack of adequate resources or case complexity.