Dispute over the Interpretative Verdicts of the Constitutional Tribunal –  the Standpoint in the Discussion

The article consists of few parts. At the beginning, the author discusses a definition of interpretative verdicts and a history of the dispute between The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal over this kind of judgments. The author doesn’t present arguments that are described in literature but climes that the dispute concernes three problems: legality of interpretative verdicts, their binding force and interpretative verdicts as a base for reopening proceedings. In the second part, two arguments against delivering interpretative verdicts are formed. The author claims that the Constitutional Tribunal should limit a number of such judgments because there is no legal ground for interpretative verdicts in the Constitution and because they abridge independence of judges of the Supreme Court and other courts. In the last part of the article, the author describes a genetic cause of the litigation between the Tribunal and courts. It is claimed that the dispute has been generated by dissentions between methods of interpretation of legal acts used by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal takes advantage of the method of derivation and the Supreme Court usually uses the method of clarification. These methods are in contrary to each other and because of this they are the base of the dispute.