This sounds to me like someone saying that the Queen of England has the power to dissolve parliament - and just doesn't for political concerns. (Those political concerns being that if she ever exercises that power, it'll be removed)
At some point you have to recognize that if you can only use power in ways that don't interfere with another governmental body, that power might not really exist.
> Rulings of the constitutional court have almost no real life consequences. If there is a negative ruling the parliament is given ample time before the unconstitutional law must be replaced. If there is any replacement within that time, the same law, formulated differently, is passed.
To say that the court does have power. But your example is an example of exactly what the OP was saying happens!
>If there is any replacement within that time, the same law, formulated differently, is passed
Which is not accurate. Actually the new laws are substantially different, in the case of the ground tax this is also very obvious.
The fact that the Court tries not to do something like that is because it is also a political actor searching for stability.