1 / 10

Clarity in justice Dr. András Osztovits judge, Kúria Courts and Communication V., Budapest - 2017

Clarity in justice Dr. András Osztovits judge, Kúria Courts and Communication V., Budapest - 2017. Jurisprudence-analysing working group. Set up by the President of Kúria, 2013 Aim: examine the drafting methods of Hungarian court decisions

afuller
Download Presentation

Clarity in justice Dr. András Osztovits judge, Kúria Courts and Communication V., Budapest - 2017

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Clarity in justice Dr. András Osztovits judge, Kúria Courts and Communication V., Budapest - 2017

  2. Jurisprudence-analysing working group • Set up by the President of Kúria, 2013 • Aim: examine the drafting methods of Hungarian court decisions • Members: 6 Kúria judges, a linguistics professor, a playreader, an IT expert • Forming 3 sub-groups: linguistics, information technology, comparative law

  3. Linguistics sub-group • Result of examination several hundred decisions • cumbersome sentence structure, stylistic errors, grammatical mistakes • no uniform spelling rules of dates, numbers, names, abbreviations • legal expalantion lengthy and cumbersome • detailed factual background with non-relevant informations

  4. Information technology sub-group • part of decisionscan be automated • computer programmecan be developed: • - canoffertextualvariables • - canrecognisenames, sensitivedatas • - nottiethejudges’ hand • - result more uniform and searchabledecisions

  5. Comparative law sub-group • Sources: • Magna Charta of Judges (CCJE) • Vilnius Declaration (ENCJ) • draftingpractices of 18 European countries • Results: • use of clear and understandableterms is a universalneed • shortenthelength of decisions

  6. Summary report • Published in 2014 • Five levels of unification of decision writing: • 1. linguistic correctness • 2. stylistic correctness • 3. citation uniformity • 4. structural uniformity • 5. contents • Need for a stylebook

  7. Stylebook • Conclusions: • logical set of arguments in the reasons of a decision • only necessary factual background • summarisation and categorisation of parties arguments • avoid irrelevant explanations

  8. Stylebook • References to legal rules • References to case law • References to legal literature • References to explanatory note of Ministry of Justice

  9. First experiences of the Stylebook • Recommendation of the President of Kúria (2014) • Positive feedback from courts and legal professionals • More transparent and searchable decisions • 5 years later a new analysing working group

  10. Thank you for your attention!

More Related