In the field of constitutional law, the correct motivation of appeals is an essential pillar for the effectiveness of the justice system. The recent decision TC/1020/24 of the Constitutional Court reinforces this premise by emphasizing that the appealing party has the obligation to clearly and sufficiently explain what the alleged violations and the grievances it intends to combat consist of.
The judgment makes clear that the court cannot compensate for the lack of motivation in the written submissions, since doing so would not only violate the impartiality of the court, but would also affect the right of defense of the opposing parties. As the Court explains, the reason for review must be supported by arguments that allow verifying whether the rights invoked have actually been violated. Otherwise, as occurred in this case, the appeal will be declared inadmissible due to lack of justification.
This decision is a wake-up call for lawyers who litigate in the constitutional field. The importance of properly motivating an appeal is not just a procedural formality; it is a guarantee that the courts can exercise their function effectively. Law No. 137-11, which regulates constitutional procedures, expressly establishes in its article 54.1 that appeals must be filed by means of a reasoned document. However, as this judgment shows, the procedural reality shows that this requirement is not always met.
The lack of motivation in appeals not only creates inefficiency in the judicial system, but also deprives citizens of an effective defence of their fundamental rights. When an appeal lacks solid argumentation, the court is prevented from thoroughly analysing the alleged violations and, therefore, from guaranteeing effective judicial protection.
The role of lawyers in the motivation of appeals
The legal profession demands a commitment to technique, clarity and precision. In the case of constitutional appeals, these principles become more relevant, since what is at stake is not only the procedural success, but also the protection of fundamental rights. Lawyers must assume the responsibility of rigorously identifying the violations that support the appeal, relating them to the facts of the case and legally justifying them.
Judgment TC/1020/24 should also be interpreted as a reminder that the exercise of constitutional procedural rights requires a thorough knowledge of the applicable regulations and the current jurisprudential criteria. In this regard, judgment TC/0369/19, cited as a reference, clearly establishes that the court needs elements that allow it to identify and assess the reasons for the alleged violation.
Conclusion
The decision of the Constitutional Court in TC/1020/24 teaches us that the motivation of an appeal is not just another procedural burden, but an essential requirement to guarantee access to constitutional justice. Lawyers have the duty to present briefs that meet the minimum standards of motivation, both for the benefit of their clients and of the justice system in general.
The challenge for the legal community lies not only in complying with these formal requirements, but in ensuring that each appeal submitted is a true instrument for the defence of fundamental rights, thus contributing to the strengthening of constitutional justice.
