INTERPRETATIVE DECISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF NORTH MACEDONIA IN THE FUNCTION OF PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Abstract

The paper examines the “tense” relationship between the Constitutional Court and the Assembly through the prism of two significant innovations in constitutional judiciary in the Republic of North Macedonia. The first concerns the introduction of what, in European constitutional judiciary, is called an “interpretative decision”. Pursuant to Article 36 of the Act of the Court, the Court can conduct an initial review of constitutionality, can express doubts and instituted proceedings, and in the resolution can set out its legal positions, but defers the final decisions and prescribes a time-limit for the adopter to bring the regulation into conformity, under the repressive “threat” of a repealing or annulling decision. The purpose of this innovation is for the Court to preserve the integrity of the legal order while granting the body that adopted the contested regulation one further (time-limited) opportunity to correct itself and return to the sphere of constitutionality, thereby preventing legal vacuums that could have serious implications for the order.

The paper will analyze the objectives, the legal nature and the effect of this type of “repressive interpretative decisions”, the grounds for their introduction, and their impact on the “tense” and complex interaction between the Constitutional Court (as a negative) and the Assembly (as a positive legislator).

The second innovation consists of the introduction of the possibility for the Court to monitor the implementation of constitutionality, legality, and the rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution, and, at its own discretion, to adopt a special report indicating the need for measures to be undertaken for their realization and protection, which shall be submitted to the competent authority.