This master's thesis examines the right to a reasoned judicial decision as a key constitutional procedural guarantee, that ensures fairness in civil court proceedings. It focuses in particular on the analysis of Slovenian case law from the perspective of this guarantee. In the first part, the thesis examines the scope of courts’ obligations to respond to various arguments and proposals, submitted by the parties, emphasizing the connection between the court’s duty to provide reasoning and the effective right to be heard. It then shows, how the importance of reasoning is also reflected in ensuring the possibility of appellate review and the effective right to appeal. Case law indicates, that the duty to provide reasoning is narrower for appellate courts than for courts of first instance. However, in cases involving complex legal issues or where the court of first-instance has failed to meet its reasoning standards, a more extensive reasoning may also be required from appellate courts. The right to a reasoned decision does not, in itself, imply a right to a correct judicial decision. Therefore, the Constitutional Court is not the appropriate body to assess the adequacy of judicial reasoning, based on its own interpretation of ordinary law. In the final part of the thesis, an analysis of several Constitutional Court decisions is conducted in the context of the limits of constitutional complaint review. Among others, the thesis presents a well-known case, in which the Constitutional Court, through three separate decisions, attempts to present its disagreement with the substantive content of lower court's rulings, as a procedural flaw in the reasoning. The analysis suggests, that even in its more recent case law, the Constitutional Court refers to a violation of the right to a reasoned judgment in cases, where it disagrees with the application of ordinary law in the judgments of regular courts. This has led to frequent criticism of the Court for overstepping its jurisdiction.
|
