Scholarlink

<p>The relevance of the topic arises from the trends observed in 2021–2025 towards the formalisation of the reasoning in judicial acts, which significantly reduced the level of legal certainty and generated distrust in judicial institutions. The purpose of the study was to clarify the relationship between the quality of reasoning in judicial decisions and the risk of disciplinary liability of judges. The analysis focused on the legal systems of Moldova, Romania, Spain and the USA, which differ in models of legal writing and the degree of institutional control. Using content analysis, a typology of reasoning defects and a classification of violations by court instance, it was established that a decline in the quality of reasoning significantly increases the likelihood of a disciplinary response. In Moldova, 82.7% of cases with a low level of reasoning resulted in disciplinary action against judges, whereas with a high level of reasoning this figure was only 4.5%. The largest share of violations was recorded in courts of first instance (60.8%), where formulaic or contradictory decisions predominated. In Romania and Spain, similar cases amounted to 36% and 28%, respectively, confirming the systemic nature of the problem. In the USA, where the reasoning test is applied as a standard for verifying the validity of decisions, the share of disciplinary responses related to poor-quality reasoning was 19%, the lowest among the countries analysed. The generalisation of disciplinary formulations made it possible to identify typical defects of legal writing, in particular, excessive formality, formulaicity, lack of logical connection between evidence and conclusions, and disregard for the parties’ positions. The findings confirmed that a high level of structural logic, clear legal interpretation and comprehensive assessment of evidence significantly reduce the risk of professional liability. The practical significance of the results lies in the potential to develop unified approaches to assessing the quality of judicial decisions. The proposed criteria may be applied by judicial self-governing bodies, disciplinary commissions and judicial training institutions as a tool for improving standards of legal writing.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Analysis of the Importance of Correctly Drafting Judicial Decisions in Preventing Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月4日

查看全文
  • Natalia Gavrilenco

摘要

The relevance of the topic arises from the trends observed in 2021–2025 towards the formalisation of the reasoning in judicial acts, which significantly reduced the level of legal certainty and generated distrust in judicial institutions. The purpose of the study was to clarify the relationship between the quality of reasoning in judicial decisions and the risk of disciplinary liability of judges. The analysis focused on the legal systems of Moldova, Romania, Spain and the USA, which differ in models of legal writing and the degree of institutional control. Using content analysis, a typology of reasoning defects and a classification of violations by court instance, it was established that a decline in the quality of reasoning significantly increases the likelihood of a disciplinary response. In Moldova, 82.7% of cases with a low level of reasoning resulted in disciplinary action against judges, whereas with a high level of reasoning this figure was only 4.5%. The largest share of violations was recorded in courts of first instance (60.8%), where formulaic or contradictory decisions predominated. In Romania and Spain, similar cases amounted to 36% and 28%, respectively, confirming the systemic nature of the problem. In the USA, where the reasoning test is applied as a standard for verifying the validity of decisions, the share of disciplinary responses related to poor-quality reasoning was 19%, the lowest among the countries analysed. The generalisation of disciplinary formulations made it possible to identify typical defects of legal writing, in particular, excessive formality, formulaicity, lack of logical connection between evidence and conclusions, and disregard for the parties’ positions. The findings confirmed that a high level of structural logic, clear legal interpretation and comprehensive assessment of evidence significantly reduce the risk of professional liability. The practical significance of the results lies in the potential to develop unified approaches to assessing the quality of judicial decisions. The proposed criteria may be applied by judicial self-governing bodies, disciplinary commissions and judicial training institutions as a tool for improving standards of legal writing.