On numerous occasions media present High Court's decisions about public figures or entities and each time I notice mentioning that the motivation will come sometime in the future.

Picking a random recent example, the High Court decided that a certain opposition political alliance can run for European Parliament elections.

However, there is not clear how it reached its decision, as motivation should be issued at a latter time.

I do not know how it works for other countries (High Courts or equivalent), but it seems strange to have a separation between the decision and motivation, especially when speaking about such important trials (decisions are final at this level).

Question: Why high courts decisions do not also immediately issue the motivation for their decisions?

  • 3
    I've added the Romania tag because that seems to be the high court in question, although the linked article doesn't make that specific. – Jontia Mar 15 '19 at 8:46
  • @Jontia - yes, it is about the Romanian High Court. I do not know about other countries, but I expect some to have a similar mechanism. – Alexei Mar 15 '19 at 11:58
  • 1
    Do you have any reason to suspect the delay has anything to do with politics? Otherwise, I think this belongs to Law.SE. – yannis Mar 15 '19 at 13:18
  • @yannis - I think this is by law and I am wondering why the law is the way it is (which is more about politics than law)? (the decision is delivered faster than the motivation). This seems strange as in order to get to the decision, there are quite solid reasons especially at this level. – Alexei Mar 15 '19 at 14:13
  • Apparently the judges have 30 days to motivate their decision(s). But it looks like that limit is commonly exceeded by the higher courts due to workload. I don't know which law sets this 30-day term or why it was adopted. – Fizz Mar 15 '19 at 21:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .