Abstract
When we talk about judges with respect to the unity of a continental legal system, we commonly address the ways they deal with a large body of legal rules prepared over a long period of time by a long line of decision-makers. From all the interpretive conclusions they may derive from a single legislative text, we wish they choose the one which helps achieve the greatest possible coherence of the legal system.
What is perhaps surprising is that we insist on this option no matter how remote the legal rule is from the facts at hand. Sometimes, the rule is so remote, i.e. its text has so little in common with the facts, that we can almost take it for granted that the legislator did not have such facts in mind.
We could even say there is nothing to apply. But we still speak about interpretation, deduction, syllogism or subsumption, the standard toolkit of the bodies called on to apply the law (law-applying organs).