The Prespa Agreement signed on June 17, 2018, which changed the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia, is a precedent on international law. In the procedure of his conclusion, ratification, and execution were committed serious violations of procedural rules. Although the violations that this agreement produces are numerous, and with different nature, the focus of this paper is on procedural violations. The Prespa Agreement also has a lot of substantial mistakes which is in confrontation with the Constitutional, and the international law because the Prespa Agreements provisions derogate some essentially fundamental rights as a right of self-determination. But this paper is focused only on fundamental violations of legal norms that prescribes the procedure for promulgation of the Prespa Agreement - the process of negotiation, conclusion, ratification, and publishing. The process of negotiating, signing and ratifying the Prespa Agreement is followed by flagrant violations of the constitutional norms, statute norms, and the norms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in the part that regulates the issue of persons who was competence for adopting an authenticating the text of a treaty. Besides the introductory part and historical introduction to the genesis of the problem, the focus of this paper is the procedure of negotiating, concluding, and ratifying the Prespa Agreement. The procedural aspects of the referendum on the Prespa Agreement will be elaborate in the part called “negotiation and conclusion of international agreement” because, by the time being, this referendum was issue notice after the conclusion phase and before ratification.

In this text, the author examines the historical aspects of the constitutional complaint, analyzes the genesis of its implementation in the legal systems, first of all, the states representing Western democracies. Furthermore, it seeks to answer the question whether the constitutional complaint is properly detected as a legal remedy or a remedy. It should be borne in mind that the definitive definition arises and is ultimately determined by the position of the constitutional court in the system of state power. Special attention is paid to the attempt to implement the constitutional complaint and the legal order of the Republic of Macedonia. The author through a brief review carries out a critical analysis of the constituent elements of the constitutional complaint that the new one predicts Draft amendment to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia. Particular attention is drawn to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Draft Amendment XXXIX from the aspect of the negative impact they perform on the position of the Constitutional Court, displacing it from the primary base with the implementation and the regular appeal.

In every domestic law that is part of the continental legal tradition, the Constitutional court has the central role of keeping the normative balances between the national and international legal order. The formulation “internal, national legal order” involves all pronounced acts, which means the Constitution, statutes, by-laws, and ratified international agreements. Every provision of the national law must be in normative harmony with the Constitution – as a domestic regulation with the highest legal power. Hence, with the act of ratification, the international agreements can be subject to the constitutionality review - besides the statutes and the by-laws. The constitutional makers can decide the constitutionality review of the international agreements to be prescribed by constitutional norms. If the constitutional makers omitted to regulate specialized authorization, the Constitutional court, through its own practice, can create a model for reviewing the constitutionality of the international agreements. Having in mind that the Macedonian constitutional system has not provide the constitutionality control of the international agreements, the Macedonian Constitutional court has a fully independent role in defining the method for implementing the principle constitutionality over the international agreements – a specialized model for “interpretation” (complement) of the constitutional law. More precisely, the Macedonian Constitutional court has already accepted this approach for constitutional law interpretation.