Case-based reasoning as a measure of constitutional adjudication

Abstract Case-based reasoning has high significance in constitutional adjudication. The constitutional courts of the Kelsenian model also follow their own previous decisions to develop their own case law, even if those decisions do not bind them formally. In the course of constitutional interpretation, to build coherent and predictable case law and determine constitutional principles and standards in a consistent way are also reasonable expectations of constitutional adjudication deriving from the rule of law. The paper analyses the case law of the Hungarian Constitutional Court from this perspective, regarding the criticism of public figures in defamation cases. It takes case-based reasoning as a measure of the case law of the HCC, reveals the tendencies and highlights the main problems associated with it.