Authentic Interpretation of the Constitution in the Croatian Parliamentary Law



Abstract Views
323

Downloads
306

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Aug 3, 2022
Published Aug 29, 2022
10.24018/ejpolitics.2022.1.3.25

Abstract viewed = 323 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Having in mind that the authentic interpretation is an interpretation of a legal norm that, due to its ambiguity or misinterpretation in practice, is provided by the same body that enacted it, the paper examines whether Croatian parliamentary law empowers the Croatian Parliament, as a constitution-maker, for giving an authentic interpretation of the Constitution. In addition, the paper examines whether the Parliament has the power to give an authentic interpretation of constitutional provisions in the parliamentary law of three republics of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the Republic of North Macedonia, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Republic of Serbia) which, like the Republic of Croatia, have retained the institute of authentic interpretation after gaining their independence. For that purpose, the paper analyzes the relevant provisions of the Constitution, laws, and parliamentary rules of procedure.

It was concluded that in the Republic of Croatia, as well as in mentioned states, there is no interpretative power of the parliament in relation to the provisions of the Constitution. In concrete, individual cases the ordinary (non-authentic) interpretation of constitutional provisions is primarily given by the courts, and ultimately by the Constitutional Court, while the parliament has the power of amending vague or misinterpreted provisions in the procedure of amending the Constitution.

Keywords: authentic interpretation, constitution, parliament, parliamentary law

References

  1. Alvazzi del Frate, P. (2014). The référé législatif and the cahiers de doléances of 1789. In P. Maffei, & G. M. Varanini (Eds.), Honos alit artes. Studi per il settantesimo compleanno di Mario Ascheri. Vol. IV, L’eta moderna e contemporanea. Giuristi e istituzioni tra Europa e America (pp. 305–312). Firenze University Press.
     Google Scholar
  2. Antić, T. (2015). Vjerodostojno tumačenje zakona. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, 36(1), 619–644. https://hrcak.srce.hr/141269. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  3. Austrian General Civil Code (1811). www.literature.at/viewer.alo?viewmode=fullscreen&objid=11585. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  4. Bačić, A. (1999). Konstitucionalizam i parlamentarno pravo. Vladavina prava, 3(6), 129–155.
     Google Scholar
  5. Böckenförde, E.-W. (1999/2017). Constitutional Jurisdiction: Structure, Organization, and Legitimation. In M. Kunkler, & T. Stein (Eds.), Constitutional and Political Theory: Selected Writings (pp. 186–205). Oxford University Press.
     Google Scholar
  6. Berner, K. (2016). Authentic Interpretation in Public International Law. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV), 76(1), 845–878. http://www.zaoerv.de/76_2016/76_2016_4_a_845_878.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  7. Conference of European Constitutional Courts on problems of legislative omission in constitutional jurisprudence (2008a). https://www.confeuconstco.org/reports/rep-xiv/report_Slovenia_sl.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  8. Conference of European Constitutional Courts on problems of legislative omission in constitutional jurisprudence (2008b). https://www.confeuconstco.org/reports/rep-xiv/report_Serbian_se.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  9. Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (1999). Official Gazette no. 99/99, 29/02, 49/02.
     Google Scholar
  10. Constitution of Belgium (1994). www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/showpage.cfm?section=/publications/constitution&language=nl&story=constitution.xml. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  11. Constitution of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (1946). Official Gazette of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia no. 10/46.
     Google Scholar
  12. Constitution of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1868). http://data.legilux.public.lu/file/eli-etat-leg-recueil-constitution-20161020-fr-pdf.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  13. Constitution of the Hellenic Republic (1975). www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/f3c70a23-7696-49db-9148-f24dce6a27c8/001-156%20aggliko.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  14. Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic (1993). http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ky-kg/1/20?cl=ky-kg. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  15. Constitution of the People's Republic of China (1982). http://en.npc.gov.cn.cdurl.cn/constitution.html#. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  16. Constitution of the People's Republic of Croatia (1947). Official Gazette no. 7/47.
     Google Scholar
  17. Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (1990). Official Gazette no. 56/90, 135/97, 8/98, 113/00, 124/00, 28/01, 41/01, 55/01, 76/10, 85/10, 5/14 - Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia no. SuP-O-1/2014 of 14 January 2014.
     Google Scholar
  18. Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia (1991). www.sobranie.mk/content/Odluki%20USTAV/UstavSRSM.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  19. Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (2006). http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/view/139-100028/ustav-republike-srbije. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  20. Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia (1991). http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=USTA1. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  21. Constitution of the Slovak Republic (1992). www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/1992/460/. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  22. Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1963). Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no. 14/63.
     Google Scholar
  23. Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1936). http://constitution.garant.ru/history/ussr-rsfsr/1936/red_1936/3958676/. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  24. Constitution of Ukraine (1996). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  25. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (2004a). Ruling no. U-II-1265/2000 of 28 September 2004. https://sljeme.usud.hr/usud/praksaw.nsf/fOdluka.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=C1256A25004A262AC1256F1E00350B68. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  26. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (2004b). Ruling no. U-I-2694/2003 of 28 January 2004. https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2004_02_20_557.html. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  27. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (2007a). Ruling no. U-I-2488/2004 of 14 November 2007. https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2007_12_133_3832.html. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  28. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (2007b). Decision no. U-II-3438/2005 of 16 May 2007. https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2007_06_58_1884.html. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  29. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (2010). Decision no. U-III-4188/2006 of 14 January 2010. https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2010_02_15_382.html. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  30. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (2014). Decision no. U-III-1133/2012 of 8 April 2014. https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2014_04_54_1029.html. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  31. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (2017). Ruling no. U-I-60/1991, etc. of 21 February 2017 and separate opinion. https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2017_03_25_564.html. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  32. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (2020). Ruling no. U-I-1372/2020, etc. of 14 September 2020 and five separate opinions. https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2020_09_105_1971.html. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  33. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia (2013). Ruling no. 49/2013 of 10 July 2013. http://ustavensud.mk/?p=11025. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  34. Constitutional Court of the Republic of North Macedonia (2021). Ruling no. 284/2020 of 21 April 2021. http://ustavensud.mk/?p=20870. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  35. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia (1997). Decision no. U-I-40/96 of 3 April 1997. www.us-rs.si/documents/69/75/u-i-40-962.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  36. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia (1999). Ruling no. U-I-361/96 of 21 October 1999. http://www.us-rs.si/documents/cb/c2/u-i-361-962.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  37. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia (2021). Decision no. U-I-462/18-45 of 3 June 2021. www.us-rs.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/U-I-462-18-Odlocba.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  38. Čepulo, D. (2012). Hrvatska pravna povijest u europskom kontekstu od srednjeg vijeka do suvremenog doba. Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu.
     Google Scholar
  39. Derenčin, M. (1880). Tumač k obćemu Austrijskomu gradjanskomu zakoniku, knjiga I. Nakladom Sveučilišne knjižare Albrechta i Fiedlera.
     Google Scholar
  40. Endicott, T. (2020). Authentic Interpretation. Ratio Juris, 33(1), 6–23. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/raju.12271. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  41. European Court of Human Rights (1993). Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis against Greece. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-45603&filename=001-45603.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  42. Giunio, M. (2005). Ustavnost i vjerodostojnost autentičnog tumačenja zakona u hrvatskoj praksi. Pravo u gospodarstvu, 44(5), 3–34.
     Google Scholar
  43. Giunio, M. (2006). Osvrt na rasprave o autentičnom tumačenju zakona. Pravo i porezi, 4(1), 72–77.
     Google Scholar
  44. Hautamäki, V.-P. (2007). Novel Rules in the Finnish Constitution – The Question of Applicability. Scandinavian Studies In Law, 52(1), 133–154. www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/52-9.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  45. Huels, J. M. (2000). Ecclesiastical Laws. In J.P. Beal, J.A. Coriden, & T.J Green (Eds.), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (pp. 55–86). Paulist Press.
     Google Scholar
  46. Huels, J. M. (2012). Classifying Authentic Interpretations of Canon Law. The Jurist: Studies in Church Law and Ministry, 72(2), 605–640. https://doi.org/10.1353/jur.2012.0046.
     Google Scholar
  47. Iancu, B. (2012). Legislative Delegation: The Erosion of Normative Limits in Modern Constitutionalism. Springer.
     Google Scholar
  48. Karakamisheva Jovanovska, T. (2018). Constitutional Justice in the Republic of Macedonia Macedonian Constitutional Court - Legal Symphony Or Legal Cacophony. Iustinianus Primus Law Review, 9(2), 1–20. http://pf.ukim.edu.mk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/6.Paper-for-Constitutional-Justice-prof.-Karakamisheva.doc. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  49. Kodeks kanonskog prava s izvorima 1917. uređen po odredbi sv. oca pape Pija X., proglašen po nalogu pape Benedikta XV. (2007). Glas Koncila.
     Google Scholar
  50. Law on Courts (2013). Official Gazette no. 28/13, 33/15, 82/15, 67/18, 21/22.
     Google Scholar
  51. Law on the Constitutional Court (1994). www.us-rs.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Zakon-o-ustavnem-sodiscu-ZUstS-3.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  52. Law on the Constitutional Court (2007). www.pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/SlGlasnikPortal/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2007/109/1/reg. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  53. Law on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (2017). https://ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/zakon_ccu_2021.doc. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  54. Law on the invalidity of legal regulations adopted before 6 April 1941 and during the enemy occupation (1946). Official Gazette of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia no. 86/46.
     Google Scholar
  55. Law on the manner of application of legal regulations adopted before 6 April 1941 (1991). Official Gazette no. 73/91.
     Google Scholar
  56. Law on the National Assembly (2010). http://www.parlament.gov.rs/upload/documents/412-10.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  57. Mommsen, T. (1870). Digesta seu Pandectae Iustiniani Augusti, Vol. I. Accedunt tabulae duae. Weidmann.
     Google Scholar
  58. Neumann, F. (1992). Demokratska i autoritarna država. Naprijed.
     Google Scholar
  59. Ordinance of Louis XIV (1667). https://numelyo.bm-lyon.fr/f_view/BML:BML_00GOO0100137001101319999/IMG00000014. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  60. Petrak, M. (2020). Kanonsko pravo i hrvatski pravni sustav (II). Codex Iuris Canonici i suvremeno hrvatsko pravo. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, 70(5), 675–708. https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.70.5.04.
     Google Scholar
  61. Pravni leksikon (2007). Leksikografski Zavod Miroslav Krleža.
     Google Scholar
  62. Rodin, S. (2005). Demokratsko-pluralistička kritika instituta tzv. vjerodostojnog tumačenja. Informator, 53(5337-5338), 1–4.
     Google Scholar
  63. Romac, A. (1988). Minerva: florilegium sententiarum latinarum - florilegij latinskih izreka. Latina et Graeca.
     Google Scholar
  64. Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia (2008). www.sobranie.mk/content/Delovnik%20na%20RM/DelovniknaSRMPrecistentekstAvgust13.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  65. Rules of Procedure of the Croatian Parliament (2013). Official Gazette no. 81/13, 113/16, 69/17, 29/18, 53/20, 119/20 - Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia no. U-I-4208/2020 of 20 October 2020, 123/20.
     Google Scholar
  66. Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives of the Croatian Parliament (1992). Official Gazette no. 59/92.
     Google Scholar
  67. Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly (2002). http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=POSL34. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  68. Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly (2010). http://www.parlament.gov.rs/upload/documents/Poslovnik%20Narodne%20skupstine%20-%20precisceni%20tekst%20Sluzbeni%20g.pdf. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  69. Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of the Republic of Croatia (1992). Official Gazette no. 17/92.
     Google Scholar
  70. Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of the Socialist Republic of Croatia (1965). Official Gazette no. 22/65.
     Google Scholar
  71. Saveski, D. (2020). Procedural unconstitutionality and illegality of Prespa Agreement. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, 57(4), 1193–1225. https://doi.org/10.31141/zrpfs.2020.57.138.1193.
     Google Scholar
  72. Stalev, Z. (2000). Interpretacija Ustava od Ustavnog suda. In J. Crnić, & N. Filipović (Eds.), Ustavni sud u zaštiti ljudskih prava; interpretativna uloga Ustavnog suda (pp. 261–263). Hrvatski institut za ljudska prava Novi Vinodolski, Hanns Seidel Stiftung, Deutsche Stiftung für internationale rechtliche Zusammenarbeit e.V., Hrvatski pravni centar, Organizator.
     Google Scholar
  73. Stres, A. (2001). Sloboda i pravednost: nacrt političke filozofije. Kršćanska sadašnjost.
     Google Scholar
  74. Struić, G. (2016a). Vjerodostojno tumačenje zakona u hrvatskom parlamentarnom pravu od 1947. do danas. Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava, 16(3), 553–585. https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.16.3.3.
     Google Scholar
  75. Struić, G. (2016b). Postupak za autentično (vjerodostojno) tumačenje zakona u hrvatskom, makedonskom, slovenskom i srbijanskom parlamentarnom pravu i praksi. Pravni vjesnik, 32(3–4), 133–156. https://hrcak.srce.hr/179202. Accessed: 2.8.2022.
     Google Scholar
  76. Struić, G. (2018). Pitanje totalitarne naravi autentične interpretacije zakona kao relikta prošlosti. In D. Barbarić, M. Brekalo, M. Buntić et. al. (Eds.), Identiteti – kulture – jezici, Godišnjak Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Mostaru: Nasljeđa totalitarizama u suvremenom društvu (pp. 55–68). Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Mostaru.
     Google Scholar
  77. Struić, G. (2019). Vjerodostojno tumačenje podzakonskih propisa. In I. Belaj, Ž. Vajda Halak, & B. Horvat (Eds.), Zbornik radova međunarodne konferencije „Razvoj javne uprave“ (pp. 211–220). Veleučilište „Lavoslav Ružička“ u Vukovaru.
     Google Scholar
  78. Struić, G. (2021). The Question of Public Participation in the Procedure for Authentic Interpretation of Laws. Review of European and Comparative Law, 44(1), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.11433.
     Google Scholar
  79. Testen, F. (2000). Interpretacija u odlukama Ustavnog suda Slovenije. In J. Crnić, & N. Filipović (Eds.), Ustavni sud u zaštiti ljudskih prava; interpretativna uloga Ustavnog suda (pp. 265–277). Hrvatski institut za ljudska prava Novi Vinodolski, Hanns Seidel Stiftung, Deutsche Stiftung für internationale rechtliche Zusammenarbeit e.V., Hrvatski pravni centar, Organizator.
     Google Scholar
  80. Vidaković Mukić, M. (2015). Opći pravni rječnik. Narodne novine.
     Google Scholar
  81. Visković, N. (2006). Teorija države i prava. Birotehnika.
     Google Scholar
  82. Vrban, D. (2003). Država i pravo. Golden marketing.
     Google Scholar
  83. Zakonik kanona Istočnih Crkava proglašen vlašću pape Ivana Pavla II. s izvorima (1996). Zagreb: Glas Koncila.
     Google Scholar
  84. Zakonik kanonskog prava proglašen vlašću pape Ivana Pavla II. s izvorima (1996). Zagreb: Glas Koncila.
     Google Scholar
  85. Zierlein, K.-G. (2000). Uloga ustavnih sudova pri interpretaciji pravnih. In J. Crnić, & N. Filipović (Eds.), Ustavni sud u zaštiti ljudskih prava; interpretativna uloga Ustavnog suda (pp. 327–345). Hrvatski institut za ljudska prava Novi Vinodolski, Hanns Seidel Stiftung, Deutsche Stiftung für internationale rechtliche Zusammenarbeit e.V., Hrvatski pravni centar, Organizator.
     Google Scholar