Suchergebnisse

This volume is an unabridged translation of the textbook 'Soviet Civil Law', originally published in 1983 under the auspices of the USSR Ministry of Justice. Edited by Professor O.N. Sadikov, the work includes contributions from nine Soviet legal scholars

The French Law of evidence is at the crossroad between procedural law and civil law. As part of the procedural law, it is governed by general principles set out by the Code de procédure civile, such as the contradictory principle, the principle of public hearing or the free disposition principle, which means that the parties define the framework of the proceeding and that the judge cannot base his decision on facts that were not put forward by the parties themselves. It is also the Code de procédure civile that organises the respective roles of the judge and the parties for the taking of evidence: since 1976, it imposes a – rather complex – balance between adversarial and inquisitorial principles. Other general principles were set by case law, e.g. the principle that no one can pre-constitute evidence in his own favour or the principle of fair evidence. On the other hand, more substantive rules are to be found in the Code civil. These rules mix two systems, the system of the preuve morale, applicable in some specific litigation, and the system of the preuve légale, which is clearly dominant in civil litigation. In the first system, evidence is in principle free, which means not only that any mode of proof is admissible, but also that assessment of evidence by the judges is free. In the second one, only determined means of evidence are admissible and their probative force is often set out by law. A majority of evidence rules derive more or less directly from this summa divisio. In fact, the predominance of the preuve légale system has made the French system of evidence rather rigid, in particular regarding the exaggerated importance of written evidence.

This short monograph attempts an exploration of the legal treatment of evidence questions in Cyprus law. The first section of the study offers a comparative-law introduction to the legal system of Cyprus – a mixed legal system that in matters of civil litigation, including evidence, tends to strongly follow the English common law tradition (including the existence of an autonomous legal field of evidence law, that tends to be dominated by criminal evidence law. The second section presents the general principles underlying Cypriot civil procedure, including evidence. The sections that follow examine in more detail legal aspects involving civil evidence, especially how the basic types of evidence are treated in Cyprus law and how the processes for the taking of evidence are organized. The study also examines special questions including the legal treatment of illegally obtained evidence, legal costs and problems of language. The final section examines the cross-border dimensions of civil evidence-taking.

Ireland as a common law jurisdiction operates an adversarial system. Ireland has a written Constitution, Bunreacht na h-Éireann. Other sources of law include legislation and European Union Law and a doctrine of precedent operates. This paper comprises a discussion of the law of evidence in Irish Civil Procedure. It follows the structure of a questionnaire circulated for the purposes of a comparative study as part of an EU wide project and is repetitive in parts. It was completed between November 2013 and August 2014 and in the interim there have been significant developments in the Irish legal system, most notably the establishment of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court decision in D.P.P. v. J.C. [2015] IESC 31, which modified the exclusionary rule concerning unconstitutionally obtained evidence. The primary form of proof in Irish courts is oral evidence. Competent witnesses are generally compellable. Usually testimony, on oath or affirmation, is given viva voce in open court before the Judge and where necessary a jury, and in the presence of the parties. The right to cross-examine is constitutionally guaranteed. In civil cases, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The burden of proof rests on the party which asserts. The principle of audi alteram partem applies. A distinction is drawn between unconstitutionally obtained evidence and illegally obtained evidence. There is pre-trial discovery. Evidence taking by and for foreign courts is discussed.

Finnish civil procedure has a close connection with other Scandinavian legal systems and co-operation between the States is active. In addition, the legislation, case-law and scholarly doctrine are more and more influenced by European co-operation through the EU and Council of Europe. The principles of free disposition, free assessment of evidence, audiatur altera pars, and burden of proof form the basis for an oral and direct public hearing. It follows from these due process principles that no methods of proof are forbidden but their relevance depends on the court's assessment. The procedural doctrine in Finland is well established and has roots in the Swedish code of civil procedure of 1734, although it has gone through extensive reforms. On February 10, 2015 the Parliament of Finland passed the reform of chapter 17 of code of civil procedure, which contains the legislation on law of evidence. The extensive reform systematically updates and streamlines the previous legislation on evidence in addition to introducing new regulation e.g. on anonymous witnesses and banning invocation of evidence, which has been obtained by illegal means. The reform of chapter 17 concludes the systematic reform.

Danish civil procedure is based on a number of procedural law principles that affect the taking of evidence, including the principle of party presentation, the principle of disposition, and the principle of free assessment of evidence. The nature of Danish procedural law tends towards the adversarial model rather than the inquisitorial model. Evidence is taken during the hearing and the principle of directness applies to the procedure. Danish civil procedure is governed by the 1916 Administration of Justice Act, which was originally strongly influenced by German law. The role of the judge is to lead the process and also to intervene in proceedings when uncertainty exists, rather than just to facilitate the process by ensuring the parties abide by the laws of civil procedure.

The fundamental principles in civil procedure do not only serve as guiding principles for civil procedure in general, but are especially relevant in the taking of evidence process. The German Code of Civil Procedure lays down various rules in its part on the taking of evidence, which aim to specify the scope of the fundamental procedural principles as well as their limitations. This reports purposes to depict the taking of evidence process under German law by illustrating its interaction with said principles.