The aim of the article is to draw the attention to the importance of clear, structured,
and logically coherent reasoning of legal decisions. It is not only the final
decision that is important, but also the line of argumentation that has led the
decision maker to reach such a decision
The aim of the article is to draw the attention to the importance of clear, structured,
and logically coherent reasoning of legal decisions. It is not only the final
decision that is important, but also the line of argumentation that has led the
decision maker to reach such a decision. We are particularly made aware of
this when we find a decision surprising and try to find its supporting rationale
through its reasoning, which is (often, if we have not been involved in the
decision-making process itself) the only source of information on the relevant
facts of the case. One of such decisions is also the decision of the Supreme
Court of the Republic of Slovenia to annul the results of the vote in the referendum
on the Act Regulating the Construction, Operation and Management
of the Second Track of the Divača – Koper Railway Line. Because this decision
has surprised me, I have tried to find its rationale in its reasoning. Having at my
disposal only the commonly known facts of the matter and the facts contained
in its reasoning itself, this decision, unfortunately, does not convince me. The
purpose of the article is not criticism of the judges and of their work, but the
desire to (while respecting the decision) considerately discuss the arguments
and the reasoning that we disagree with or do not understand. Therefore, in the
article I try to elaborate in more detail on the criteria for abrogating a referendum
set by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia and to verify
the concretization of these criteria in the reasoning of the Supreme Court.
Key words: reasoning of a decision, referendum, "Second Railway Track”.