Non liquet

The Latin term non liquet is originally from the Roman court proceedings, meaning " it is not clear ". Even today, with non liquet a situation is referred to in procedural law in proof problems can be proved in which neither the statement of facts of the one nor the other.

The consequences of Nonliquet - the case may differ according to the relevant procedure:

Civil Procedure

In civil proceedings, the decision depends on a non liquet on the ( formal) proof. The one who has to prove the disputed fact by the rules of burden of proof loses the lawsuit because he remains proof due ( usually the claimant ).

Criminal

In the Code of Criminal introduces non liquet depending on stage of the proceedings:

  • In the investigation terminating the proceeding against the accused
  • In the intermediate process for rejection of admission charges against the accused
  • At trial the acquittal of the accused.

Let evidence, however, considerable doubt as to the facts of the case or the guilt of the accused, so that both favorable for him as well as an unfavorable conclusion can be drawn, this results in criminal proceedings also for acquittal or setting (→ benefit of the doubt ).

Management process

In the management process, the question of in whose expense the Unerweislichkeit is a fact depends on the substantive law. Basically, the favourability applies to, but a fundamental right must always justify intervention by the state.

" The answer to the question of who the risk of " wearing non liquet ", is part of the substantive law and is therefore not dependent about the permissible form of action. In principle, then each party bears the legal prejudice to the unprovability of him favorable constituent elements (so-called favourability principle or norm favoring [ ...]). Through interpretation of the substantive standard is to determine which distribution arrangement meets the burden of proof contained in it unwritten norm. An absolutely applicable substantive principle of burden of proof in administrative law, there are just as in the civil rights [ ... ]. Claimed the state's right to intervene in a protected by a basic right of freedom negatorisches area, he bears the burden of proving the statutory requirements of this engagement in accordance with the principles governing the burden of proof in challenging litigation [ ... ]. For in the liberal democracy of the Basic Law requires the public authority engaged in a fundamental right of justification; vice versa is not the exercise of fundamental rights require justification [ ... ]. "

Others

  • Latin in the right
  • Civil Litigation
  • Latin phrase
  • Legal language
  • Roman law
  • Law ( Miscellaneous )
607286
de