**WHEN JUSTICE DOES NOT SPEAK ALBANIAN: THE OHRI AGREEMENT EMPTIES OF MEANING AND EUROPE REMAINS RHETORIC** The Jurisprudence Exam in North Macedonia: Denial of Equality, Deviation from European Standards By Flamur Buçpapaj

**WHEN JUSTICE DOES NOT SPEAK ALBANIAN:
THE OHRI AGREEMENT EMPTIES OF MEANING AND EUROPE REMAINS RHETORIC**
The Jurisprudence Exam in North Macedonia: Denial of Equality, Deviation from European Standards
By Flamur Buçpapaj
North Macedonia faces today a test far more fundamental than any progress report or negotiation chapter with the European Union: a test of sincerity regarding equality. The jurisprudence exam, in the way it is designed and implemented, exposes a harsh reality: the Ohrid Agreement is gradually being reduced to a political formality, while its substance—the spirit meant to guarantee equality and justice—is being ignored or distorted.
The Ohrid Agreement was not signed to close an armed conflict and allow the continuation of a monoethnic state with cosmetic adjustments. It was a foundational act, a social contract recognizing Albanians as a state-forming community, with equal rights and responsibilities in key institutions. Ohrid’s purpose was not symbolic use of language alone but the real sharing of power and authority. And the most sensitive, decisive, and enduring power lies in the justice system.
Justice is the heart of the state. Administration can be reformed, laws can be amended, but when justice is not inclusive and built on linguistic equality, it produces unilateral power, not justice. The jurisprudence exam is the gateway through which those who will decide on law, freedom, and citizens’ property pass. When this gateway is constructed around the dominance of a single language, it filters not only professional knowledge but also cultural and ethnic belonging. Justice, in such circumstances, ceases to be neutral and becomes an instrument of domination.
The problem does not merely lie in the difficulty Albanians may face in passing the exam but in the principle it represents: a justice system formed and tested in one language cannot deliver justice for all. This constitutes a fundamental violation of the Ohrid Agreement. Ohrid demanded that Albanian be part of decision-making and legal reasoning, not merely included in translated documents or administrative signage. A judge or prosecutor trained monolingually cannot reflect the multiethnic reality of society.
This practice is at odds not only with Ohrid but also with European standards. In Europe, multilingual states have long recognized that justice cannot function with only one voice. Belgium has built its judicial system on full linguistic equality, where lawyers are trained and practice in their community language. Switzerland, with its four official languages, does not see multilingualism as a burden but as a guarantee of institutional stability and trust. In Spain, regions such as Catalonia and the Basque Country incorporate the community language fully into legal training and court proceedings. In Finland, although Swedish-speakers constitute a small minority, their language has equal status in justice because equality is measured constitutionally, not by demographic percentages. Canada, often referenced in Europe, treats it as unthinkable for a lawyer to be tested in a language other than their mother tongue in a bilingual state.
Against these models, the practice of the jurisprudence exam in North Macedonia appears not only problematic but archaic. It reflects a logic of uniformity through language that Europe abandoned decades ago. This is precisely the logic the Ohrid Agreement sought to overcome, transforming multilingualism into an instrument of stability, not domination.
Even more concerning is that the law itself normalizes this injustice. Discrimination is not expressed as prohibition but embedded in procedure, making it more sophisticated and hidden. Political silence, institutional relativism, and technical justifications are turning inequality into a standard. When inequality becomes standard, the state loses moral legitimacy, and citizens lose trust.
In this context, protest is not a destructive act but a defense of the constitutional order. It is a defense of the Ohrid Agreement as the foundation of coexistence, a European orientation, and a guarantee for the fair future of this state. Changing the law regarding the jurisprudence exam is not a privilege for Albanians; it is a return to the spirit of Ohrid and to European standards that ensure real, inclusive, bilingual, and equal justice.
A state that does not guarantee equality in justice cannot be stable, cannot be European, and cannot be just. And Europe that speaks only in words, but not through institutions, remains mere rhetoric. If justice does not speak Albanian, the problem is not the Albanians. The problem is the state. And every silence in the face of this problem becomes historical complicity.