Abstract
This article focuses on the use of interpretative and other (i.e. additive and scope) rulings in the case law of the Constitutional Court. The introduction of each passage seeks to achieve a more precise description, or a definition of the analysed rulings.
It is followed by a summary of the methodology used while identifying and analysing the relevant decisions, along with a description of the main reasons that led the Constitutional Court to adopt such rulings into its case law. The corner stone of the article is an analysis of the use of such rulings; the total number of cases in which they were used, in what kind of proceedings the Constitutional Court resorts to them, what motivation lies behind their use, and how their use has developed in time.
The article also mentions some of the more problematic aspects of the use of such rulings, their differences and the relation between them.