The wording is rejected by the Judicial Ombudsman, who considers them to be contrary to the principle of objectivity. JO now directs criticism at the judge, reports Today’s Law.
JO has obtained statements from the alderman’s manager, who stated that it is not possible to assess the reasons for the judgment in any other way than that they are contrary to the principle of objectivity in the constitution. However, the councilor must have promised that this will not be repeated, according to the manager.
JO notes that judges have “considerable freedom” to decide how judgments are written, but must express themselves correctly and stick to the substantive issues.