Romanian law requires the courts to carry out an effective, real and consistent examination of the means, arguments and evidence of all the parties. The reasoning of the judgement should prove that the examination was performed by the judge(s).
In this regard, the RHCCJ has determined in recent case law that the reasoning of a judgement is a logical syllogism and should be able to explain intelligibly the grounds that led to the decision. It does not require an exhaustive answer to all the arguments brought by the parties, but it does require a response to the fundamental arguments which are likely to influence the final ruling (Decision 1954/30.05.2014).
In some situations, the reasoning is considered proper even if the court includes the arguments of a party which are relevant for the final decision. Such a practice does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the court did not make its own assessment of the parties' claims and of the evidence, if the court in its decision established the relevant facts and evoked the legal provisions that allowed it to conclude that a party's arguments are correct and applicable to the case (Decision 125/30.01.2017).
In a separate, recent judgement, the RHCCJ ruled that if a court decision contains passages taken directly from documents submitted by a party, such a decision will be considered invalid for a lack of proper reasoning. Even if the arguments that support the court's reasoning are similar, in essence, to the arguments made by one of the parties, the court cannot include written passages directly, but must provide a clear assessment of all parties' arguments and prove that the reasoning of the court is the result of its own logical syllogism which allowed the judge to reach the final decision (Decision 3729/27.09.2018 and 2212/17.04.2019).
The same rule applies for the reasoning issued by the appellate court, which reiterates the arguments of the inferior court. For the reasoning of the court to be considered proper, the superior court must confirm the legality of the inferior court's arguments (Decision 3818/07.11.2018).
Against this background, the main conclusion is that the reasoning is considered proper if it confirms that the judge truly examined the essential issues that were presented to the court, even if certain arguments of the parties or of other courts have been included in the reasoning.
This standard applies to all judgements issued by Romanian courts and is required for the decisions to be considered valid and enforceable.