Problems inherent in the abstract nature of general distribution rule of the burden of proof in civil proceedings

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    The burden of proof in civil proceedings is distributed between the parties following the general distribution rule of the burden of proof, meaning that each party has to prove the circumstances constituting the basis for its claim and objections. Such an abstract content of the distribution of the burden of proof, however, does not always reveal the answer to the question who carries the burden of proof. The impression can, therefore, be created that following the distribution rule for the burden of proof under discussion, each party has to prove the presence or absence of a fact. If we assumed, however, that substantiation of the same fact is a commitment of each opposing party, it would remain unclear who would have to bear the negative procedural legal consequences of failure to comply with or improper compliance with the burden of proof. Therefore, it is necessary to detail the general distribution rule of the burden of proof by identifying objective criteria to be invoked in deciding the issue of distribution of the burden of proof.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)317-330
    JournalEuropean scientific journal
    Volume9
    Issue number22
    Publication statusPublished - 2013

    Fingerprint

    Burden of Proof
    Proceedings
    Procedural

    Keywords

    • Civil proceedings
    • Burden of proofEvidence
    • Evidence

    Cite this

    @article{dd2aa9f2fdd242fa827a7ab2649b9c79,
    title = "Problems inherent in the abstract nature of general distribution rule of the burden of proof in civil proceedings",
    abstract = "The burden of proof in civil proceedings is distributed between the parties following the general distribution rule of the burden of proof, meaning that each party has to prove the circumstances constituting the basis for its claim and objections. Such an abstract content of the distribution of the burden of proof, however, does not always reveal the answer to the question who carries the burden of proof. The impression can, therefore, be created that following the distribution rule for the burden of proof under discussion, each party has to prove the presence or absence of a fact. If we assumed, however, that substantiation of the same fact is a commitment of each opposing party, it would remain unclear who would have to bear the negative procedural legal consequences of failure to comply with or improper compliance with the burden of proof. Therefore, it is necessary to detail the general distribution rule of the burden of proof by identifying objective criteria to be invoked in deciding the issue of distribution of the burden of proof.",
    keywords = "Civil proceedings, Burden of proofEvidence, Evidence",
    author = "Egidija Tamosiuniene and Zilvinas Terebeiza",
    year = "2013",
    language = "English",
    volume = "9",
    pages = "317--330",
    journal = "European scientific journal",
    issn = "1857-7881",
    publisher = "European Scientific Institute",
    number = "22",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Problems inherent in the abstract nature of general distribution rule of the burden of proof in civil proceedings

    AU - Tamosiuniene, Egidija

    AU - Terebeiza, Zilvinas

    PY - 2013

    Y1 - 2013

    N2 - The burden of proof in civil proceedings is distributed between the parties following the general distribution rule of the burden of proof, meaning that each party has to prove the circumstances constituting the basis for its claim and objections. Such an abstract content of the distribution of the burden of proof, however, does not always reveal the answer to the question who carries the burden of proof. The impression can, therefore, be created that following the distribution rule for the burden of proof under discussion, each party has to prove the presence or absence of a fact. If we assumed, however, that substantiation of the same fact is a commitment of each opposing party, it would remain unclear who would have to bear the negative procedural legal consequences of failure to comply with or improper compliance with the burden of proof. Therefore, it is necessary to detail the general distribution rule of the burden of proof by identifying objective criteria to be invoked in deciding the issue of distribution of the burden of proof.

    AB - The burden of proof in civil proceedings is distributed between the parties following the general distribution rule of the burden of proof, meaning that each party has to prove the circumstances constituting the basis for its claim and objections. Such an abstract content of the distribution of the burden of proof, however, does not always reveal the answer to the question who carries the burden of proof. The impression can, therefore, be created that following the distribution rule for the burden of proof under discussion, each party has to prove the presence or absence of a fact. If we assumed, however, that substantiation of the same fact is a commitment of each opposing party, it would remain unclear who would have to bear the negative procedural legal consequences of failure to comply with or improper compliance with the burden of proof. Therefore, it is necessary to detail the general distribution rule of the burden of proof by identifying objective criteria to be invoked in deciding the issue of distribution of the burden of proof.

    KW - Civil proceedings

    KW - Burden of proofEvidence

    KW - Evidence

    M3 - Article

    VL - 9

    SP - 317

    EP - 330

    JO - European scientific journal

    JF - European scientific journal

    SN - 1857-7881

    IS - 22

    ER -