Philosophic burden of proof

The burden of proof governs admissibility in evidence and risks and Obligation. The objective or substantive burden of proof ( finding load) determines which party bears the risk of unprovability of evidence claim. The subjective or formal burden of proof (better burden of proof ) determines which party it is up to a given stage of the process to provide proof of their claim. Basis of all reasoning is the first where appropriate, mutual statement of the facts alleged factual.

Principles of burden of proof

Normally, each party to bear in contentious civil process, the burden of proving facts that belong to the facts of their favorable legal norm (in short: What is meant to be useful to me, I have to say and prove. ). Therefore, the burden of proof often in substantive civil law (particularly in the BGB ) founded, since this contains bases of claim, supporting standards, defenses and objections. The facts (for example, a contract of sale ) that would constitute a claim standard will need to complete, regularly the party that a claim (in this example as to payment of the purchase price) derived from it, recite ( Beibringungsgrundsatz ) and - if the opponent denies - prove. The opponent must allege and prove that it (eg compliance, § 362 BGB - he had already paid, etc. ) any contrary rights or objections are entitled.

Objective burden of proof and burden of proof in civil proceedings often coincide, ie they meet the same party. The burden of proof, however, can change to the proof defendant, if the evidence party bearing the burden of proof is introduced, which are able to justify the conviction of the court. In such case it is up to the defendant evidence to eliminate this conviction again. The burden of proof simultaneously controls the taking of evidence and the evidence: The evidence burdened party must first introduce the main evidence. He is paid if the court has won the law requires degree of conviction of the correctness of the proof assertion (usually full conviction, but also partly mere substantiation ). Only then can the defendant must prove evidence to the contrary - the burden of proof has changed with it. Proof to the contrary is provided if the evidence opponent prevents the required degree of satisfaction of the court; this it is sufficient when Regelbeweismaß the full conviction if there is doubt as to the veracity of the evidence claim are sown. The main proof is then shaken. If you fail already the main source of evidence, the court refrains from taking evidence on rebuttal, because the burden of proof has never changed on the evidence against.

In court proceedings, the principle of due process applies, such as in the administrative process, wins the substantive burden of proof of particular importance since it is also contending crucial because while the official determination of the formal burden of proof plays no meaning. The parties are nevertheless invited to assist in their own interests acting in their favor after fact-finding powers.

Lawyers call remaining doubts within a consideration of evidence or the local indistinguishability between several options as non liquet.

From a burden of proof is when not the claimant must prove the premises of his claim, but the opponents lack thereof. A burden of proof is usually based on a legal presumption. For example, a plaintiff sues on purchase price, he must prove the agreement on the amount of the purchase price required of him if the defendant denies an agreement to that effect. Sets the plaintiff, however, a written Sales Agreement with the appropriate content before, so now must the defendant, if he can not rebut the presumption of correctness and completeness, to prove that it lays down the purchase price is specified incorrectly.

Actual presumption and prima facie evidence does not lead to a reversal of the (objective) burden of proof, but in a reversal of the burden of proof.