This study analyses the key issue of the proper justification of Courts’ decisions and how the obligation of Article 38 of the old CPC (i.e. Article 39 of the new CPC) in civil proceedings affects the judicial crisis. For a better understanding of the issue the study is divided into three sections.

The first section conducts a critical analysis of the Case-law’s view that a mere citation to the kind of the evidences is sufficient to prove the case. Nevertheless this position contradicts the constitutional obligation for a specific as well as thorough justification of the court decisions.

The next section analyses the issue of the precepts of common experience and logic. Specifically it explains how a general invocation of these lessons sometimes conceals an arbitrary and ideological assessment of the evidence that leads to the catalysis of the obligation to reach justifiable conclusion.

The last section finally assesses the issue of the disclosure from the civil judge of the commission of the tax evasion offense (especially during family cases) by the defendant. The monetary amount of such an offence affects significantly the substance of the legal dispute. The study explains the obligation that the article 38 of the (old) pcp imposes on the civil judge in these cases.

Following the analysis of the relevant problematic areas the study proposes de lege ferenda solutions that are practically applicable.

For more details click on the following link : http://www.nbonline.gr/journals/60/volumes/1241/issues/1761/lemmas/4917387