Reasoned Jury Verdicts and the Right to a Fair Trial: In Light of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Austrian Constitutional Court

This paper examines the tension and possible reconciliation between the requirement for reasoned jury verdicts and the right to a fair trial, focusing on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision in Taxquet v. Belgium (2010) and the Austrian Constitutional Court’s decision in G 344/2016-19 (2017). Traditionally, common law countries have upheld the principle of the no-reasoned verdict to protect the complete independence and intime conviction of jurors. As such, jury deliberations remain confidential and are not subject to appellate review. In contrast, civil law countries have regarded reasoned judgments as a core component of the rule of law, essential for ensuring the legitimacy of judicial decisions, safeguarding the defendant’s right of defense, and enabling meaningful appellate review. In the Taxquet case, the ECtHR Grand Chamber did not find the absence of reasons in jury verdicts to be a violation of the Convention per se but emphasized that procedural safeguards must be in place to ensure that the defendant can understand the grounds for a guilty verdict. In response, France and Belgium amended their criminal procedure laws to require jury verdicts to include reasons. Austria, under Article 91 of its Constitution, maintains a dual system of citizen participation in criminal trials through both jury trials and mixed courts (Schöffen), but continues to exempt jury verdicts from the obligation to provide reasons. In 2017, the Austrian Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 342 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows unreasoned jury verdicts, concluding that the Austrian system meets the level of procedural safeguards required under the Taxquet judgment. Through a comparative analysis of these key cases, this paper explores the relationship between reasoned verdicts and the substantive guarantee of a fair trial, and how a balance can be struck between procedural legitimacy and citizen participation in adjudication. It further draws implications for the operation and improvement of South Korea’s lay participation trial system.