The non-statutory regulation of abortion was unconstitutional. Statutory regulation was required for any direct and significant restriction of fundamental rights and, in certain instances, the determination of the content of such rights and the manner of their protection. However where the relationship with fundamental rights was indirect and remote, administrative/executive (i.e. non-statutory) regulation was sufficient as otherwise everything would have to be regulated by statute.

The decision on whether the foetus is or is not a person is within the competence of the Parliament.

The Court established the right to self-identification. It annulled procedural rules that prevented a child from challenging the presumption of paternity. With this case, the court introduced the concept of living law into its practice. This means that the Court reviews not the normative text itself but the norm that prevails, becomes effective and is realised by the established practice of ordinary courts or administrative agencies.

The Court – overstepping the boundaries of its legal power – annulled the decision of an ordinary court based on an unconstitutional legal provision.

The current separation of powers over the armed forces under the Constitution was the natural result of every parliamentary system. Both governing and commanding functions over the armed forces were activities directed at their successful operation: the governing authority stood outside the forces while the commander was situated inside being not only the head but also part of the organisation. The relative independence of the armed forces within the executive branch and the establishment of governing authorities which fell outside the executive power’s jurisdiction were political rather than constitutional questions for which the Constitution set the framework.

In the absence of a definite purpose and for arbitrary future use, the collection and processing of personal data is unconstitutional. The right to the protection of personal data, known as the right to informational self-determination, as guaranteed under Article 59 of the Constitution, permits everyone the freedom to decide about the disclosure and use of their personal data to the extent that the approval of the person concerned is generally required to register and use it. In addition Article 59 of the Constitution ensures that such person can monitor the entire route of data processing thereby guaranteeing the right to know who used the data and when, where and for what purpose it was used. A statute could exceptionally require the compulsory supply of personal data and prescribe the manner of its use provided it complied with Article 8 of the Constitution.