Authentic Interpretation of the Constitution in the Croatian Parliamentary Law

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.