Abstract

The category of the legal experience does not feature in the three dominant types of legal thought which conceptualize the law respectively as norm, as legal system, or as legal decision. This essay reinterprets the activity of the Constitutional Court through the category of the legal experience. In so doing, it questions whether it still makes sense to speak of the Constitutional Court as the Judge of Laws. Through an examination of various theories on the legal experience, the author argues that the Constitutional Court is today a judge of legal experience. To do so, the essay considers both the use that the case law does of the notion of legal experience, and the relationship between reasonableness and legal experience.