A reasoned decision acts as a mirror reflecting the background of the final court judgment. Because the reasoning makes it visible that justice has been properly administered. Furthermore, the reasoning prevents arbitrariness in the proceedings and allows for the review of the decision.
The requirement for court decisions to be reasoned is an undeniable prerequisite of the right to a fair trial. Because the reasoning makes it visible that justice has been properly administered. The ECHR also considers the right to a reasoned decision to be among the implicit elements of the right to a fair trial, as stipulated in Article 6/1 of the Convention, and particularly emphasizes that courts must render their decisions with reasons.(Ruiz Torija/Spain, 1994, pr.29; Higgins and Others/France, 1998, pr.42)
We can describe the term ‘reasoning’, as it appears in the context of a reasoned decision, as a mirror reflecting the background of the final decision presented as the resolution of a dispute. Furthermore, the reasoning sheds light on the process leading to the decision, both for the parties involved and for the public. Because an ideal reasoning indicates how the dispute and the facts subject to the dispute were characterized, and on what reasons and regulations the decision is based. It includes 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 fairer. The fairness of the decision also satisfies the parties to the lawsuit and the public. In addition to these, the reasoning prevents arbitrariness in the proceedings and allows for the review of the decision. (Suominen / Finland, 2003, pr.36‑37)
On the other hand, the existence of a true, sufficient, and satisfactory reasoning cannot be claimed in cases where a justification contains general and clichéd expressions, where the legal grounds for the conclusion reached are not indicated, where a causal link between the material facts and the decision is not established, or where the reasons for the non-acceptance of the presented evidence are not specified. (Buzescu/Romania, 2005, pr.67; Ruiz Torija/Spain, 1994, pr.30)
Why is Expert Legal Assistance Necessary in Constitutional Court (AYM) and ECtHR Applications?
Court decisions that are unreasoned or insufficiently reasoned constitute a serious violation of rights that can be subject to individual application before both the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the ECtHR. However, for such applications to succeed: The violation must be clearly identified, a legal structure consistent with the jurisprudence of the ECtHR and AYM must be established, and the deficiencies and contradictions in the file must be effectively presented.
This is only possible with the professional support of a lawyer experienced in individual applications. Otherwise, the application may be rejected due to formal deficiencies or insufficient reasoning.
An expert lawyer: technically analyzes the decision subject to the rights violation, structures the application by establishing the relationship between evidence and reasoning, and effectively presents how the lack of reasoning undermines the right to a fair trial. Therefore, especially in violations concerning the right to a reasoned decision, before making an individual application, working with an expert lawyer in the field is of critical importance for the admissibility and success of the application.
