Concept and Significance of the Judgment Style
The judgment style represents an essential form of reasoning decisions in the context of judicial rulings. In German law, the judgment style refers to the methodical presentation and justification of a judge’s decision, in which all factual and legal considerations that have led to the judgment are systematically and thoroughly set out. This is in contrast to the so-called opinion style, which is particularly used in university education.
Basic Principles of the Judgment Style
Definition and Distinction
The judgment style is characterized by the fact that the result of the judicial decision is stated at the outset, followed by a precise presentation of the reasons for the decision. The aim is to make it comprehensible for all parties involved as well as for third parties on which facts and legal considerations the court relied in its decision-making process.
The judgment style is to be distinguished from the opinion style. While the latter is typically used in the application of law and involves a hypothetical examination of various solutions according to the major/minor premise structure, the judgment style is based on the already rendered verdict and subsequently explains the decision-making process systematically according to the points relevant for the proceedings.
Statutory Foundations
Statutory requirements for the judgment style are found particularly in procedural codes – including § 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) for civil judgments, § 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) for criminal judgments, and § 117 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) for administrative court judgments. These regulations stipulate that written judgments must, in addition to the operative part, include a detailed reasoning section in which the underlying facts and legal evaluation must be presented.
Structure of the Reasoning in the Judgment Style
The Classic Structure
- Operative Part: At the beginning of the judgment, the operative part is set out, that is, the outcome as determined by the court.
- Facts: Subsequently, the facts are presented, outlining the uncontested and disputed facts as well as the history of the proceedings.
- Reasons for the Decision: The core of the judgment reasoning explains the legal assessment and the reasoning for the decision.
Reasons for the Decision in Detail
In the reasons for the decision, the court addresses the legal issues that are relevant for the determination. This includes the legal bases for the claim, the application of statutory provisions to the facts, and the parties’ arguments. The reasoning is presented from the perspective of the already established outcome. No hypothetical alternatives are examined; instead, only the decisive reasons for the outcome are set out.
The presentation of the reasons follows, in substance, the examination scheme from the general to the particular and is guided by the type of procedure and the subject matter of the dispute.
Particularities Depending on the Type of Procedure
Civil Proceedings
In civil proceedings, the application of the judgment style is particularly important, as the court is obliged to set out the essential reasons on which the decision is based in a comprehensible manner (§ 313 (3) ZPO). Accordingly, the judgment is structured into the operative part, the facts, the reasons for the decision, and the closing formula.
Criminal Proceedings
In criminal proceedings, the judgment style is stipulated in § 267 StPO. The reasons for the decision must in particular include the evaluation of evidence, a precise presentation of the legal assessment of the act, and the sentencing.
Administrative Proceedings
In judgments of administrative courts, the reasoning also follows the judgment style, whereby according to § 117 VwGO the reasons may be kept brief if the decision is based solely on the violation of procedural rules.
Function and Significance of the Judgment Style
Transparency and Comprehensibility
The judgment style serves the rule of law by disclosing the court’s decision-making process and thus ensuring transparency and comprehensibility. The affected parties are enabled to understand the court’s reasoning and to facilitate an effective review by appellate courts.
Binding Effect and Prejudicial Value
The detailed reasoning in the judgment style creates a reliable basis for the binding effect of the judgment (§ 322 ZPO) and a possible prejudicial effect for subsequent proceedings.
Didactic Aspects
Beyond its practical importance, the judgment style also serves as a model for drafting judicial decisions and imparts requirements for the judicial obligation to provide reasons. As such, it is regarded as the benchmark for the review of judgments in appellate proceedings.
Judgment Style in Practice
Differences Compared to University Training
In university training, the opinion style is traditionally taught, which entails a hypothetical and comprehensive examination. The judgment style, on the other hand, is used in the context of judicial decisions and is focused on the rendered decision and its underlying basis.
Requirements for Judicial Reasoning
In the judgment style, the court must set out all factual and legal considerations essential for the decision in such a way that the parties and the appellate court can review the correctness of the judgment. Failure to comply with this duty to provide reasons may result in the judgment being set aside.
Criticism and Challenges
Requirements for the Depth of Reasoning
A frequently discussed issue is the required depth of reasoning. Courts face the challenge of providing adequate transparency on the one hand while ensuring a practical form of reasoning on the other.
Significance for Appellate Courts
An inadequate application of the judgment style can result in the judgment being challenged and overturned on appeal. The requirements for judicial reasoning are therefore of considerable practical importance.
Literature and Further Information
Further information can be found in the commentary literature relating to each procedural code (in particular ZPO, StPO, VwGO) and the pertinent handbooks on judicial reasoning style.
Conclusion:
The judgment style is a central characteristic of judicial reasoning and contributes significantly to the transparency, comprehensibility, and rule of law in judicial proceedings. Compliance with the judgment style is therefore indispensable for an effective administration of justice and the effective oversight of judicial decisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What different judgment styles exist in German judicial practice, and how do they differ?
In German judicial practice, a distinction is made particularly between the so-called judgment style (also “opinion style” or “legal judgment style”) and the opinion style. The judgment style is oriented towards judicial practice, whereby the decision is structured in such a way that first the outcome, i.e., the decision (operative part), is presented, and then the reasoning explains how the decision was reached. The focus is on a comprehensible presentation of the legal considerations that have led the court to its judgment. In the judgment style, the facts relevant to the decision and their legal classification are systematically addressed. Unlike in the opinion style, not every conceivable solution is explored, but rather the argumentation is focused on what the court is convinced of and what actually contributes to the decision. In addition, there are mixed forms, particularly in educational literature and in complex judgments, where elements of both styles are sometimes used, for example, to improve comprehension or to fully present the range of disputes.
In what context is the judgment style applied in civil and criminal proceedings?
In civil proceedings, the judgment style is decisive for drafting judgments under § 313 ZPO. This provides that the judgment must contain a brief summary of the facts and the reasons for the decision. The judgment style ensures that the facts, the court’s findings, and the legal assessment are clearly separated and that the judgment is comprehensible both for the parties and higher courts. In criminal proceedings, the use of the judgment style is prescribed by § 267 StPO. The statute requires that the judgment clearly documents the results of the taking of evidence as well as their legal classification. In both types of proceedings, the judgment style fulfills the function of ensuring transparency and comprehensibility of the judicial decision and also enables a legally sound review by higher courts.
What significance does the judgment style have with regard to the finality and comprehensibility of court decisions?
The judgment style is of essential importance for the finality and reviewability of judicial decisions. The clear and detailed presentation of the reasons for the decision in the judgment style ensures that the parties can understand the judicial decision-making process. This is not only important for the parties’ acceptance of the decision, but above all for scrutiny by appellate courts. Only if the reasoning makes the structure and argumentation of the decision transparent can a substantive review by an appellate or review court be effectively and efficiently performed. Furthermore, the judgment style helps to objectify the judicial decision-making process and guards against arbitrariness.
What is the typical structure of a judgment in the judgment style under German law?
The typical structure of a judgment in the judgment style begins with the heading and statement of the caption (parties, file number, date). This is followed by the operative part (the actual decision), the facts (presentation of the facts and parties’ submissions), if applicable, the decision formula, then the reasoning (legal evaluation and application of the facts to the relevant provisions), and finally the judges’ signatures. The reasoning is the heart of the judgment style: It clearly shows how the court arrives at its legal evaluation and, thus, the operative part. Both the legal arguments and the facts relevant to the decision must be presented in a comprehensible manner.
What role does the judgment style play in legal education and examinations?
In legal education, the judgment style is particularly required in the preparation of judgment and decision exam papers as well as in state examinations. Knowledge of the judgment style is not only imperative for passing assessment examinations but is also indispensable for future professional practice. Examination regulations and educational literature place great importance on mastering the judgment style, enabling junior lawyers to draft judicial decisions as required by legal practice. It is not only about fulfilling formal requirements, but also about the ability to subsume complex factual scenarios precisely and in a legally comprehensible manner.
Are there statutory requirements or special demands regarding the application of the judgment style?
The application of the judgment style is prescribed by law in various procedural codes, in particular § 313 ZPO (for civil judgments), § 267 StPO (for criminal judgments), and § 117 VwGO (for administrative judgments). These provisions specify the required elements of a judgment and how the reasons must be structured. In practice, there are also comprehensive judicial manuals, guidelines, and drafting aids which set out specific requirements and suggestions for applying the judgment style. Evaluation criteria in legal examinations are likewise based on these standards.
What are the typical sources of error in applying the judgment style and how can they be avoided?
The most common mistakes in the judgment style include an unstructured presentation of the reasons for the decision, the absence of facts or legal evaluations relevant to the decision, as well as unclear or incorrect subsumptions. Mistakes also often arise when the opinion style is mistakenly retained and alternative solutions are discussed in detail, even though the court has already made its decision. To avoid these errors, special emphasis should always be placed on a clear structure: The argument must efficiently lead from the facts to the legal evaluation, cover all decisive aspects, and avoid unnecessary evaluations or personal remarks. Sample judgments, checklists, and a critical self-review of one’s own reasoning are helpful tools.
