Diferenţa de opinii dintre judecătorii români – cauze şi necesitate

Rezumat

This study is a reason for reflection on two topics that the law in Romania has dealt with to a lesser extent, namely: why do judges think differently and whether it is appropriate in all situations to exhibit a different thinking in an opinion that does not coincide with that of the majority.
It is important for judges to know the reasons that may lead them to arrive at determinations that are at odds with those of other judges and even with those made by themselves under similar circumstances. This awareness will prevent their decision making from being swayed by external factors of which they are unaware.
Minority opinions can and should be rendered only when absolutely necessary, that is when the different views cannot be reconciled. When this happens, tact, politeness, and neutrality are needed. It is therefore necessary to identify the situations in which dissenting opinions or judgments that are at odds with those rendered by other judges of the court are uncalled for.
Recommendations are made on how best to reason such an opinion so that it is accepted and it does not undermine the authority of both the judgment and the court.
The study is mostly based on the author’s knowledge of soft skills and personal experience, and it contains references to books, films, speeches, conferences from various areas of universal culture, from literature to psychology and spirituality.