The reasoning serves as a mirror reflecting the background of the final court decision. Because the reasoning makes it visible that justice has been properly administered. Furthermore, the reasoning prevents arbitrariness in trials and allows for the review of the decision.
The requirement for court decisions to be reasoned is an undisputed prerequisite of the right to a fair trial.
Because the reasoning makes it visible that justice has been properly administered. The ECtHR also considers the right to a reasoned decision among the implied elements of the right to a fair trial, regulated in Article 6/1 of the Convention, and particularly emphasizes that courts must render their decisions with reasoning.(Ruiz Torija/Spain, 1994, pr.29; Higgins and Others/France, 1998, pr.42)
We can describe the term “reasoning” as used in the right to a reasoned decision, as a mirror that shows the background of the final decision presented as a resolution to the dispute. Furthermore, the reasoning sheds light on the process by which the decision was reached, both for the parties and for the public. Because an ideal reasoning shows how the dispute and the facts subject to the dispute were characterized, and on what reasons and regulations the decision rendered was based. It contains legal assessments that establish a logical connection between the material facts of the dispute and the decision rendered, in accordance with reason, law, and the case file. The reasoning shows the parties that their claims have been heard. A reasoning possessing these characteristics ensures that the decision is more just. The justness of the decision also satisfies the parties to the case and the public. In addition to these, the reasoning prevents arbitrariness in trials and allows for the review of the decision. (Suominen / Finland, 2003, pr.36-37)
On the other hand, a genuine, sufficient, and satisfactory reasoning cannot be said to exist in cases where the justification contains general and stereotypical statements, the legal/judicial basis of the conclusion reached is not shown, a causal link is not established between the material facts and the decision, or it is not stated why the evidence presented was not accepted. (Buzescu/Romania, 2005, pr.67; Ruiz Torija/Spain, 1994, pr.30) An article suggestion.
Why is Expert Lawyer Support Important in Individual Applications?
Individual applications to the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have a much more complex structure than ordinary petitions, owing to their strict formal requirements, short application periods, and the need for advanced legal technique. A significant portion of applications is rejected due to procedural deficiencies — incorrect form submission, inaccurate legal characterization, improper exhaustion of domestic remedies, or missed deadlines — before the merits of the human rights violation are even assessed. For this reason, having the process prepared by a lawyer proficient in technical requirements from the outset directly increases the likelihood of the application being accepted.
The fundamental issue in individual applications is to correctly identify which right, guaranteed by the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights, the incident violated, and to present this convincingly in light of the settled case law of high courts. The matter is not merely to bring a complaint before the court; it is to be able to scientifically justify why the interference failed the tests of “proportionality”, “necessity in a democratic society”, and “legitimate aim”. This analysis requires serious legal knowledge, up-to-date case law tracking, and the ability to construct sound argumentation.
The application process is not limited to merely writing the petition; it also includes professional stages such as responding correctly to deficiency notices, submitting additional evidence and explanations in a timely manner, and technical follow-up of the process. For all these reasons, working with an expert lawyer in individual applications to the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) not only prevents procedural errors but also significantly increases the likelihood of the application being accepted; ultimately ensuring the success of the most effective legal remedy available to an individual against the state.
