Reasoning of Civil Judgments Between Legislation and Judiciary in Algeria and Comparative Legislation

Abstract

This study examines the reasoning of civil judgments as a fundamental guarantee of fair trial, judicial transparency, and effective appellate review. It analyzes the legal foundations, requirements, and judicial applications of reasoning in Algeria, with comparative reference to Egyptian and French legislation. Using a comparative analytical approach, the research explores constitutional and statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and doctrinal perspectives governing the obligation to state factual and legal grounds. The study finds substantial convergence among the three systems concerning clarity, sufficiency, consistency, and the duty to address substantive defenses. It also highlights the supervisory role of supreme courts in correcting defective or insufficient reasoning. Despite this common framework, differences remain in constitutional entrenchment, judicial style, and procedural development. The study concludes that strengthening judicial training, harmonizing case law, improving access to reasoned decisions, and cautiously integrating legal technology can enhance the quality, efficiency, and credibility of civil judgments in modern practice.