Herald of Civil Procedure
EN
main-photo

We in a citing index:

BURDEN OF PROOF IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

FOREIGN CIVIL PROCEDURE


RADIM CHALUPA

RADIM CHALUPA,
JUDr., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of the Department of Civil Procedure,
Faculty of Law, Masaryk University in Brno, Attorney

DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2019-9-6-188-207

Author deals in the article with the situation, in which the court in civil proceedings has to
make the decision, but it is not always possible to get information from the most important
source for establishing the facts – taking of evidence. If there is objective uncertainty about
any of the relevant factual circumstances, which is referred to as non liquet, the court cannot
rule on the basis of the facts established. The court is obliged to decide on the claimed claim
in case of fulfilment of procedural conditions irrespective of whether the factual situation
has succeeded or failed to be clarified, otherwise it would have committed an error in the
form of denial of justice. If the facts are not established and the court still has to decide
on the claim, the decisive criterion for deciding the case is the burden of proof. Author
concerns on function of the burden of proof in the civil proceedings and deals also with the
components of the burden of proof. The burden of proof is very closely connected with the
burden of claiming facts. Author describes the relation between the burden of proof and
the principle to hear which applies in the Czech contentious proceedings. Important part of
the article formed by the problematics of the legal regulation of the burden of proof in the
Czech Republic and decision-making practice of the Czech courts in the issue of the burden
of proof. Author concerns also on the possible procedures for defending the claim from the
view of the burden of proof including the theories of the burden of proof (norm analysis
theory, theory of the facts that establish a right, prevent a right and abolish a right and the
negative theory). At the end of the article deals author with the basic rule of distribution of
the burden of proof and presents the German, Austrian and Swiss view on the basic rule
of the distribution of the burden of proof.

Keywords: burden of proof; principle to hear; court decision; civil procedure; Czech
Republic.

References

Baumgärtel G., Laumen H.W., Prütting H. Handbuch der Beweislast. Grundlagen.
3rd ed., Cologne: Carl Heymanns, 2016. 810 p.
Beckh H. Die Beweislast nach dem Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Munich: C.H. Beck,
1899. 277 p.
Chalupa R. Řízení o zaplacení směnečného nároku: (specifika a problémové aspekty).
Prague: Leges, 2019. 488 p.
Chalupa R. Směnka v soudním řízení. Prague: Leges, 2017. 256 p.
Fasching H.W. Lehrbuch des österreichischen Zivilprozessrechts. 2nd ed., Vienna:
Manz, 1990. 1232 p.
Fitting H. Die Grundlagen der Beweislast. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess, 1889, vol. 13,
pp. 1–79.
Lavický P. Důkazní břemeno v civilním soudním řízení. Prague: Leges, 2017. 272 р.
Macur J. Dělení důkazního břemena v civilním soudním sporu. Brno: Masaryk University
Publ., 1996. 161 р.
Macur J. Dokazování a procesní odpovědnost v občanském soudním řízení. Brno:
Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem Publ., 1984. 177 р.
Macur J. Důkazní břemeno v civilním soudním řízení. Brno: Masaryk University
Publ., 1995. 172 р.
Meier I. Schweizerisches Zivilprocessrecht. Zürich: Schulthess, 2010. 705 p.
Rosenberg L. Die Beweislast. 3rd ed., Munich: C.H. Beck, 1953. 407 p.
Rosenberg L., Schwab K.H., Gottwald P. Zivilprozessrecht. 17th ed., Munich: C.H. Beck,
2010. 1156 p.
Winterová A. Civilní právo procesní. 5th ed., Prague: Linde, 2008. 751 p.

Information about the author

Radim Chalupa (Brno, Czech Republic) – JUDr., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of the
Department of Civil Procedure, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University in Brno, Attorney
(158/70 Veveří, Brno, 61180, Czech Republic; e-mail: radim.chalupa.ak@gmail.com).

Recommended citation

Chalupa R. Bremia dokazyvaniia v Cheshskoi Respublike [Burden of Proof in the
Czech Republic]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa – Herald of Civil Procedure, 2019,
vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 188–207. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2019-9-6-
188-207

 el_.png   it_.png   book.png

Keywords