Abstract

With order no. 70 of 2006, the Constitutional Court decided to remit a claim due to "ius superveniens". This is the latest chapter in the so-called false accounting saga. Two interpretations have been given to this order of remittal. According to some, the Court used this order in a dilatory way, while others argue that the Court gave the judges the "a quibus" to apply "ius superveniens". On the basis of the second of these two interpretations, the authors investigate the constitutional and legislative principles of the so-called "lex intermedia in mitius".