Abordări noi și tradiționale privitoare la motivarea hotărârilor judecătorești
New and traditional approaches to the motivation of court decisions

Summary/Abstract: In the present study, the author makes a brief analysis of some procedural provisions regarding the motivation of court decisions, emphasizing in accordance with our jurisprudence and the ECHR that such an operation is an essential element of the fair trial. The analysis is also performed by briefly presenting some solutions promoted in other countries and in which the motivation of a judicial decision is a constitutional requirement. A particular analysis is given to the provisions provided in the Law on Judicial Organization (art. 16) and in art. 426 para. 5 C. proc. civ. and in relation to which the reasoning of the decision may be postponed no more than twice, each postponement not exceeding 30 days (a total of 90 days). The author considers that such postponements do not meet the demands of a fair trial, despite an opposing view promoted by the constitutional court. At the same time, the author is examining the new provisions promoted in the Code of Criminal Procedure, as a result of a very recent decision of unconstitutionality and which requires that the judgment be drafted at the time of the ruling. These procedural provisions allow the deliberation, drafting and ruling of the decision to be carried out within a period not exceeding 120 days. However, the author considers that these procedural provisions should not be translated into civil matters.

• Details
• Contents