TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Po avtorjevem mnenju, tudi na podlagi njegovih dosedanjih prispevkov, institut avtentične razlage zakona, ki smo ga prevzeli iz nekdanjega socialističnega sistema, nasprotuje bistvu liberalno-demokratičnega modela oblasti. V Sloveniji se je uporaba avtentične razlage zakona skrb zbujajoče povečala. Državni zbor jo sprejme ne samo brez prave demokratične kontrole volivcev, temveč tudi posega z njo v delo rednih sodišč. Vse avtentične razlage zakona do zdaj so bile bodisi razširjajoče bodisi zožujoče glede na pravice, zapisane v zakonu, medtem ko so nekatere vsebovale tudi elemente pojasnjevalnih avtentičnih razlag. V takšnih primerih Ustavno sodišče načeloma razlago zakona razveljavi, saj smejo biti vsebinske spremembe zakona sprejete le po zakonodajnem postopku. Ustavno sodišče je redno razveljavljalo sprejete avtentične razlage zakona razen presenetljive odločbe U-I-128/11, sprejete februarja 2013, ob kateri se je neposrečeno spopadlo z oceno ustavnosti plurinormativnih zakonskih določb. Po avtorjevem mnenju je spet zamudilo priložnost, da ugotovi neustavnost instituta avtentične razlage zakona kot takega.

Author, based also on his previous work, argues that authentic interpretation of law, a legal act inherited from the socialist times, contravenes the very nature of liberal-democratic model of government. In Slovenia, the use of authentic interpretation of law has risen worryingly. Not only the National Assembly employs it to resolve individual cases by passing the legal act without proper democratic control of electorate but also it expressly interferes with the work of regular courts. All authentic interpretations of law have been either extensive or restrictive to the rights or duties enshrined in the law, while some also bore certain elements of explanatory interpretation. If so, the Constitutional Court in principle annuls the interpretation of law since novelties in law may only be adopted through the legislative procedure. The Constitutional Court has regularly annulled all individual cases of authentic interpretation of law so far if brought before the court, except in a surprising decision U-I-128/11, delivered in February 2013, where it tackled awkwardly with the assessment of constitutionality of plurinormative legal provisions. In author’s opinion, it missed again the opportunity to conclude that the authentic interpretation of law as such is unconstitutional.

Authentic Interpretation of Law in Practice