Constitutional Court: The lack of reasoning in some low-value claims does not deprive the right to access justice nor undermine judicial independence

The Constitutional Court, presided over by Counselor Adel Al-Bahwa, rejected the constitutional challenge filed by a citizen against an insurance company. The challenger contested the constitutionality of the second paragraph of Article 9 of Decree-Law No. 46 of 1989 concerning small claims, as amended by Decree-Law No. 72 of 2025. The Court affirmed that exempting courts from providing reasons for certain judgments in such cases does not constitute a deprivation of the right to access justice, a violation of the principle of equality, or an infringement on judicial independence.

The Appellate Division of the General Court had referred the provision to the Constitutional Court following allegations of its unconstitutionality, particularly regarding the exemption from stating reasons for judgments in small claims when all of the plaintiff’s claims are accepted, provided that the defendant was properly served with the lawsuit and failed to submit a defense memorandum.

Subscribe to daily newspapers

Enroll in a training course

Breaking news

The Court clarified that the right to access justice is not incompatible with its legislative regulation, provided that the legislator does not use such regulation as a means to prohibit or undermine the right. It noted that procedural regulation of litigation falls within the legislator’s discretionary authority.

Distinction among defendants

In response to arguments that the provision violates the principle of equality, the Court emphasized that equality before the law does not require identical legal treatment for all individuals despite differences in their legal positions. The constitutionally prohibited discrimination is arbitrary discrimination, whereas differentiation is permissible when based on objective grounds required by the public interest.

The Court pointed out that the challenged provision distinguishes between a defendant who submits a defense memorandum in response to the plaintiff’s claims and a defendant who was properly served with the lawsuit but chose not to file a defense.

It explained that the presence of a defense or dispute before the court necessitates a response with concise reasons, whereas this requirement is absent when a party fails to present any defense despite having the opportunity to do so. The Court considered this distinction to be linked to the nature of the litigation and the procedures adopted by the parties, and to be consistent with the legislator’s objective of simplifying and expediting the resolution of small claims.

No infringement on judicial independence

Regarding the argument that the provision violates the principle of judicial independence enshrined in Article 163 of the Constitution, on the grounds that the absence of reasons for a judgment prevents subsequent judicial bodies from examining its rationale, the Court affirmed that judicial independence means the judge’s freedom to form their own conviction and adjudicate disputes without interference or influence from any entity, within the limits set by law.

The Court stressed that the challenged provision does not impose a specific outcome on the judge, nor does it prevent the judge from assessing facts, scrutinizing evidence, and verifying whether the conditions for granting the plaintiff’s claims are met. It also does not constrain the judge in forming their conviction or applying the law to the dispute.

The Court added that exempting courts from stating reasons for judgments in small claims, which are final and non-appealable when the legally defined conditions are met, does not undermine the essence of the judicial function, nor does it diminish the judge’s independence or jurisdiction in resolving the dispute.

The Court emphasized that this exemption does not relieve the judge of the duty to diligently scrutinize the case and determine the merits of the claim, but rather represents a procedural regulation within the legislator’s discretionary authority to organize litigation procedures.

Political analyses

Acquire a space telescope

Discover educational resources

The Constitutional Court concluded that the challenged provision does not deprive the right to access justice, violate the principle of equality, or infringe on judicial independence. Accordingly, it ruled to reject the challenge alleging violations of Articles 29, 163, and 166 of the Constitution.