The Criterion of Sufficient Legal Reasoning in the Decisions of the Constitutional Court’s Panels and Its Significance for Ensuring the Effectiveness of Legal Protection

Abstract

The article examines the criterion of “sufficient legal reasoning” applied in the decisions of the panels of the Constitutional Court of Latvia. It analyses how this requirement shapes the admissibility stage of constitutional complaints and safeguards the effectiveness of legal protection. The article outlines the key elements of adequate reasoning, its function in filtering clearly unfounded claims, and its role in ensuring that individuals receive meaningful access to constitutional review.