ᲡᲐᲔᲠᲗᲝ ᲡᲐᲡᲐᲛᲐᲠᲗᲚᲝᲔᲑᲘᲡ ᲛᲘᲔᲠ ᲜᲝᲠᲛᲘᲡ ᲒᲐᲛᲝᲧᲔᲜᲔᲑᲘᲡ ᲞᲠᲐᲥᲢᲘᲙᲘᲡ ᲒᲐᲗᲕᲐᲚᲘᲡᲬᲘᲜᲔᲑᲐ ᲡᲐᲙᲝᲜᲡᲢᲘᲢᲣᲪᲘᲝ ᲓᲐᲕᲘᲡ ᲒᲐᲜᲮᲘᲚᲕᲘᲡᲐᲡ

ანოტაცია

When interpreting a normative act, the Constitutional Court must consider not only the textual meaning of a disputed norm but also the authoritative interpretation given to it by the ordinary courts. At the same time, the Constitutional Court does not always share the interpretation adopted by the ordinary courts. Adherence to this standard is crucial for determining the admissibility of a constitutional complaint or submission, since the allegedly unconstitutional content of a norm must clearly derive from the text of the disputed provision and/or be confirmed by the authoritative interpretation of the bodies responsible for its application.
The case law of the Constitutional Court is not consistent and does not reflect a uniform approach to what should be regarded as an authoritative interpretation by bodies applying the law. To what extent should the interpretation of the ordinary courts
be taken into account? What amounts to a contradictory or manifestly unreasonable interpretation by courts of the same instance? What is the Constitutional Court’s margin of appreciation where no interpretation of the disputed norm exists in the case law
of the ordinary courts? This paper examines the standards and characteristics that may help claimants accurately determine the content of the disputed norm and, consequently, substantiate a constitutional complaint or submission. It may also assist
the ordinary courts and the Constitutional Court in harmonizing interpretive practice.