Būtisko lietas apstākļu noskaidrošana un vērtēšana

Abstract

The obligation to justify a court decision derives from the rights to a fair trial. The purpose of justification is to preclude the court’s arbitrariness, provide a possibility to check the decision and convince the audience. The court justifies its decision with legal norms and facts. Thereby the aim of the research is to study how the relevant facts are ascertained and assessed. A fact is relevant if it might be necessary for legal syllogism. As the court receives from the litigants “raw facts” which may include irrelevant and exclude relevant facts, the unimportant facts must be separated and the missing facts – clarified. This task is facilitated by a legal method called the relation technique. Applying the relation technique to ascertaining the relevant facts is targeted and successive. Moreover, the ascertained relevant facts are laid out in a table promoting the perception of the case. All the relevant facts must be assessed. The court has to verify whether the facts that might be necessary for legal syllogism are available. If the relevant facts collide, then the court must decide which fact is determinant. According to the law, the court must give reasons for accepting or rejecting the relevant facts. For proper assessment of the relevant facts, the court must use a legal method called the dialogical approach. Using this method, the court decision is structured like a dialogue between the court and the litigants. The aim of the dialogical approach is to convince the audience; therefore, the court inter alia analyzes both the accepted and rejected relevant facts.