In this article the author examines the problems connected with definition of nature of constitutional interpretation. On the base of the cases from the judicial practice, Michel Troper shows that specificity of constitutional interpretation does not reside in particular character of constitution which is the object of interpretation. According to this French theorist who is leader of the school of French legal realism, the particular trait of constitutional interpretation is due to the fact that this kind of interpretation results in constructing a hierarchy of normative acts in a given legal order. Even if such a hierarchy is described in a constitution, it will nevertheless remain hypothetical and subject to changes through an act of constitutional interpretation. Michel Troper insists that a meaning of a legal text cannot be defined prior to interpretation; therefore this legal text will not have any definitive content before being interpreted. The French theorist concludes that a legal norm is not created by the way of legislation — it is created through authentic interpretation of the legislative acts. As authentic interpretation the author holds such construction of a legal text which brings any legally relevant consequences having binding force in this given legal order, there consequences being immune to overruling by any higher instance. Such interpretation can be exercised both by judicial and non-jurisdictional bodies.