Burden of Proof: Standard of Proof in Court Proceedings (Latvian Experience)

• Autorzy: Tatjana I. Jurkeviča

Warianty tytułu

Ciężar dowodu : stopień dowodu w postępowaniu sądowym. Doświadczenia Łotwy

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The topicality of a subject matter burdenof proof in major court proceedingsis based on an ambiguous understanding of the standard of proof in legal practice, that is, of the moment when a fact is considered to be proven or unproven.The goal of an article is to research legal regulation of burden of proof in civil procedure, administrative procedure, administrative offence procedure and criminal procedure law and todetermine standard of burdens of proof within each of these procedures.The burden of proof or duty to prove a claimed fact is an essential element of any evidentiary proceedings. The determination of astandard of proof is an ambiguously understood issuein legal theory and especially in legal practice. Ambiguous understanding of standard of proof in legal practice may cause determination of unproven facts as proven or vice versa, or even lead to finding innocent persons as guilty. The author, researchingthe burden of proof in the so-called major court proceedings, provides an explanation of the legal aspects of its standards.(original abstract)

Aktualność tematyki ciężaru dowodu w ważniejszych postępowaniach sądowych" opiera się na niejednoznacznym pojmowaniu standardu dowodowego w praktyce prawniczej, czyli momentu, w którym fakt uznaje się za udowodniony lub nieudowodniony. Celem artykułu jest zbadanie regulacji prawnych ciężaru dowodu w procedurze cywilnej, postępowaniu administracyjnym, postępowaniu w sprawie wykroczeń administracyjnych i procedurze karnej oraz określenie standardów ciężaru dowodu w ramach każdego z tych postępowań. Ciężar dowodu lub obowiązek udowodnienia stwierdzonego faktu jest istotnym elementem każdego postępowania dowodowego. Określenie standardu dowodowego jest zagadnieniem niejednoznacznie rozumianym w teorii prawa, a zwłaszcza w praktyce prawniczej. Niejednoznaczne rozumienie standardu dowodowego w praktyce prawniczej może prowadzić do uznania nieudowodnionych faktów za udowodnione lub odwrotnie, a nawet doprowadzić do uznania winnymi osób za niewinne. Autorka, badając ciężar dowodu w postępowaniu sądowym, wyjaśnia prawne aspekty jego standardów.(abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Law; Legal proceedings

PL

Prawo; Postępowanie sądowe

• Czasopismo: De Securitate et Defensione. O Bezpieczeństwie i Obronności
• Rocznik: 2022
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 216--232

Twórcy

autor

Tatjana I. Jurkeviča

• Baltic International Academy Riga, Latvia

Bibliografia

• Administrative Liability Law. Law of Republic of Latvia. October 25, 2018. in effect since 01.07.2020. Latvijas vēstnesis, 225.
• Administrative procedure law. Law of Republic of Latvia. October 25, 2001. in effect since 02.01.2004. Latvijas Vēstnesis No. 164.
• Baumbach A., Lauterbach W. Albers J., Hartmann P. 2007. Kommentar zur ZPO. 65. Munich: Auflage.
• Bērziņš M. 2003. "Objektīvās izmeklēšanas princips Administratīvā procesa likumā [Objective investigation principle in Administrative procedure law]." Likums un tiesības [Law and Rights] 6(46).
• Briede Jautrīte (ed.). 2008. Administrative process in court. Group of authors. Riga: Latvijas Vēstnesis.
• Briede Jautrīte (ed.). 2013. Commentaries of Administrative procedure law. Part A and B. Riga: Tiesu namu aģentūra.
• Briede Jautrīte. 2004. "The form and components of an administrative act: Article 67 of the Administrative Procedure Law." Jurista vārds 6 (311).
• Civil procedure law. Law of Republic of Latvia. October 14, 1998, in effect since 03.01.1999. Latvijas Vēstnesis No. 326/330.
• Commercial Law. Law of Republic of Latvia. April 13, 2000. in effect since 01.01.2002. Latvijas Vēstnesis 158/160.
• Criminal procedure law. Law of Republic of Latvia. April 21, 2005. in effect since 10.01.2005. Latvijas Vēstnesis No. 74.
• European Convention on Human Rights. International Convention. November 4, 1950, in effect in Republic of Latvia since 06.27.1997. Latvijas Vēstnesis No. 143/144.
• European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case "J.J. v. Netherlands".
• European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case No. 28168/95 "Quadrelli v. Italy".
• European Court of Human Rights judgement in the case No. 62543/00 "Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain".
• European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain No. 10590/83.
• European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case Geerings v. the Netherlands No. 30810/03.
• European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case No. 35376/97 "Krčm and Others v. Czech Republic".
• European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom No. 15809/02 and 25624/02.
• Fleming James Jr. 1961. "Burdens of Proof. "Virginia Law Review 47(1):51-70.
• Judgement of Administrative regional court in a case No. 142283512.
• Judgement of Criminal case court collegium of Kurzeme regional court in case No. 120008116.
• Judgement of Vidzeme county court of city of Riga in case No. 130062316.
• Judgment of the Administrative Affairs Department of the Senate of the Republic of Latvia of July 5, 2019 in case No. A420157717, SKA-591/2019.
• Judgment of the Administrative Affairs Department of the Senate of the Republic of Latvia of August 30, 2005 in case No. SKA-207.
• Judgment of the Administrative Affairs Department of the Senate of the Republic of Latvia of May 10, 2005 in case No. SKA-116.
• Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Latvia of June 20, 2002 in case No. 2001-17-0106.
• Judgment of the Department of Administrative Affairs ofthe Senate of the Republic of Latvia of October 18, 2019 No. SKA-42/2019 (A420249614).
• Judgment of the Department of Civil Affairs of the Senate of the Republic of Latvia of January 27, 2022, Case No. C69332520, SKC-175/2022.
• Labour Law. Law of Republic of Latvia. June 20, 2001. in effect since 01.06.2002. Latvijas Vēstnesis, 105.
• Law "On Judicial Power". Law of Republic of Latvia. December 15, 1992., in effect since 01.01.1993. Ziņotājs No. 1/2.
• Levits E. On the place and functions of the administrative process in the Latvian legal system. Jurista vārds, 1998, March 19, No. 10/11 (78/79)
• Līcis Aivara. 2003. Prasības tiesvedība un pierādījumi [Claims proceedings and evidence]. K.Torgāna (ed.) Riga: TNA.
• Munday Roderick. 2005. Evidence. Third Edition. Oxford University Press.
• Nestrova Irēna. 2013. Right against self-incrimination in criminal proceedings Promotion paper. Defended doctoral thesis. Riga. In: https://dspace.lu.lv/dspace/bitstream/handle/7/5200/34504-Promocijas_darbs_IrenaNesterova_08112013.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
• Ose Daina. 2013. Evidence and proving in civil procedure. Promotion paper. Defended doctoral thesis. Riga. In: http://dspace.lu.lv/dspace/bitstream/handle/7/5139/23437-Daina_Ose_2013.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
• Ose Daina.2015.The process of proof and its exceptions in civil proceedings. Jurista vārds. 15.12.2015/ Nr. 49 (901).In: https://juristavards.lv/doc/267763-pieradisanas-process-un-ta-iznemumi-civilprocesa/

Identyfikatory

DOI

https://doi.org/10.34739/dsd.2022.02.14