Judge of the Constitutional Court, Prof. Dr Ana Pavlovska-Daneva, was a speaker at the 91st Meeting of Lawyers, organised by the Association of Lawyers of the Republic of North Macedonia, held from 23 to 25 April 2026 in Ohrid.
Pavlovska-Daneva addressed the session held on 23 April with a presentation on the topic: “Interpretative Decisions as a Novelty in Macedonian Constitutional Adjudication”.
The meeting brought together legal experts, judges, professors, and representatives of institutions, who discussed current legal issues and challenges.
Below is an excerpt from the address delivered by Pavlovska-Daneva:
Honourable colleagues,
Interpretative decisions represent a relatively new concept in legal doctrine and, in essence, signify a departure from the traditional perception of constitutional courts as a “negative legislator”. Rather than exclusively repealing or annulling laws, through these decisions the Constitutional Court assumes a more active role — influencing the manner in which legal norms are interpreted and applied.
In their essence, interpretative decisions constitute a mechanism through which the Court does not remove a provision from the legal order, but instead determines how it should be understood in order to comply with the Constitution. In this way, the creation of legal vacuums is avoided and legal certainty is strengthened. According to this logic, a law should be regarded as unconstitutional only where there is no possibility for its constitutional interpretation.
This approach enables the Constitutional Court not to assume the role of the Legislator, but rather to establish standards and boundaries within which the Legislator should operate. It is a subtle yet significant form of influence, one that does not lead to confrontation, but rather to institutional dialogue.
Legal theory has developed several types of interpretative decisions. Classical interpretative decisions arise where a statutory provision permits multiple interpretations, in which case the Court determines the interpretation that is consistent with the Constitution. Furthermore, there are situations in which the Court establishes unconstitutionality, but does not immediately repeal the law, instead allowing the legislator a period within which to remedy the identified deficiencies. Finally, there are also so-called “temporarily constitutional” laws, where the Court permits their application while indicating the need for their further regulation or amendment.
In the Macedonian legal system, interpretative decisions are a relatively recent development. The Act of the Constitutional Court introduced the possibility for a law to be assessed as constitutional, while simultaneously indicating the need for its amendment or supplementation within a prescribed period. This creates scope for the further development of interpretative techniques and for strengthening the role of the Court as guarantor of constitutionality and legal certainty.
Accordingly, interpretative decisions represent a balanced instrument — rather than “striking down” a law, they guide it towards becoming constitutional.
Thank you.
