The Rationale: The Core of the Judgment

The Rationale: The Core of the Judgment

A judgment is the final phase of a long and demanding process, in which the Court is called upon to resolve a legal dispute and dispense justice. However, the judgment does not consist of the mere formulation of a final judgment. The reasons for the judgment – that is, the detailed explanation of the reasons which led the Court to its final assessment – are at the heart of the judicial process. Through the statement of reasons, the Court reveals the logic of its reasoning, analyses its legal assessment and demonstrates the connection between the law and the facts of the case. This enables the parties and society at large to understand and accept the decision, thus strengthening the citizens’ confidence in the judiciary.

The need for reasoned judicial decisions has its roots in antiquity, where justice was seen as inextricably linked to transparency and accountability. In modern times, the justification of decisions is a fundamental principle of the rule of law and a guarantee of a fair trial. Judicial reasoning protects the fundamental rights of citizens and helps to avoid arbitrariness.

The need for reasoned judicial decisions has its roots in antiquity, where justice was seen as inextricably linked to transparency and accountability. In modern times, the justification of decisions is a fundamental principle of the rule of law and a guarantee of a fair trial. Judicial reasoning protects the fundamental rights of citizens and helps to avoid arbitrariness.

The Statement of Grounds as a Guarantee for a Fair Trial

A reasoned decision ensures a fair trial and is a central pillar of the right of every individual to know the reasons why the judiciary has reached the decision in question. In Cyprus, the requirement for reasoned judgments has been strengthened by the recent reforms in the field of civil procedure. The purpose of these reforms is to improve the efficiency of the judiciary without undermining its quality by ensuring transparency , proportionality and the length of the proceedings. In order to meet the modern needs of the judiciary, judicial decisions must provide clear, complete and detailed reasons for understanding the legal reasoning of the court. This helps to foster respect for judicial institutions and strengthens citizens’ faith in the impartiality and efficiency of the judicial system.

The reasoning of judicial decisions also becomes the foundation of the control procedure. In the context of the reforms, a fair trial is directly linked to the individual’s right to receive an adequately reasoned decision from the Court, which enhances the transparency of the judicial process and ensures the accountability of judges. In Cyprus, the reasoning of judicial decisions is recognised as a fundamental principle both by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and by Article 30 of the Cyprus Constitution, which protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. In particular, a clear and detailed statement of reasons enables the citizen to check the correctness of the decision and, if necessary, to challenge it before higher judicial bodies.

Understanding Judicial Decisions: The Importance of Reasoning

In practice, when we read a court decision, we identify two main strands: first, the Court sets out the facts and evidence presented during the hearing – such as testimony, presumptions, and other crucial evidence. Then, in the operative part, the judgment is set out, together with a statement of reasons explaining the reasons why the Court reaches its conclusion. The reasons for the judgment are the tool that ensures that the court bases its judgment on legal and factual facts and not on arbitrary or personal reasons.

or personal reasons. It enhances the transparency of the judicial process and allows citizens to understand the reasons for the final decision.

The courts’ strategy of expediting cases should not be an end in itself, as it may lead to a lack of adequate reasoning. The requirement for reasoned decisions is a fundamental foundation of democracy and an effective means of controlling the judiciary. When decisions are adequately reasoned, it ensures that justice is not arbitrary, but is based on clear legal arguments and the totality of the evidence in the case.

The courts’ strategy of expediting cases should not be an end in itself, as it may lead to a lack of adequate justification. The requirement for reasoned decisions is a fundamental foundation of democracy and an effective means of controlling the judiciary. When decisions are adequately reasoned, it ensures that justice is not arbitrary, but is based on clear legal arguments and the totality of the evidence in the case.

In Cyprus, the Court of Appeal is the highest level of judicial review in civil cases, making clear reasoning of first instance decisions vital. Despite the usual policy of the Court of Appeal not to interfere easily with the assessments of the trial courts, the existence of a comprehensive and clear statement of reasons facilitates review and enhances confidence in the judicial system.

Justification in Criminal Cases: The Need for a Substantive Examination of the Defence

It is understood that in criminal proceedings the consequences are more serious and often convictive , making the need for adequate justification heightened. It has been established in jurisprudence that the crucial element for the adequacy of the justification is the substantive examination of the positions of the defendant’s line of defence , with the Court having to delve into and carefully analyse what the accused’s side has put forward in support of its position.It is the Court that has to delve into the objections, arguments and evidence put forward by the accused, giving a reasoned response to each crucial point of his defence. In the case of Durukan and Birol v. Turkey, of 03.10.2023 (Refs. 14879/20 and 13440/21), the ECtHR concluded that the convictions and suspensions of execution of the sentence lacked adequate and objective justification, as the arguments of the defence were ignored, and requests for the collection of evidence were rejected without convincing reason. The applicants were deprived of basic fair trial rights, such as the assistance of counsel and sufficient time to prepare their defence. The Court held that the lack of clarity in the legislation granting the suspension was contrary to the rule of law and that these actions were not “foreseen by law”. Consequently, a violation of the applicants’ freedom of expression was found and damages for moral damages were awarded.

European Court of Human Rights

According to recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the lack of adequate reasoning constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the cases of Meli and Swinkels Family Brewers N.V. v. Albania (16 July 2020), the ECtHR found that the Constitutional Court of Albania failed to provide an adequately reasoned decision, thereby violating the applicants’ right to a fair trial. The lack of adequate reasoning constituted a serious violation, as the applicants did not have a full understanding of the legal grounds that supported the court’s decision. A similar lack of reasoning was observed in Mazahir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (2 April 2020), where the ECtHR found that the decisions of the national courts did not provide clear explanations for the rejection of the applicant’s claim for compensation, violating his right to a fair trial.

Conclusions

The quality of justice depends to a large extent on the quality of the reasoning behind judicial decisions. When decisions are fully reasoned, citizens’ confidence in the judicial system and acceptance of the decision as legal and fair are enhanced. Reasoning is a necessary element of any democratic society, as it ensures the effective functioning of the rule of law and the full transparency of judicial proceedings. In a healthy democracy, judicial decisions are not merely impositions of the law, but products of dialogue and explanation, which ensure the accountability and legitimacy of the judiciary.