Herald of Civil Procedure

We in a citing index:



Candidate of Legal Sciences,
Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Procedure of the Law Faculty
of the Lomonosov Moscow State University

Candidate of Legal Sciences, Senior Researcher of the Department
of Civil Legislation and Procedure of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law
under the Government of the Russian Federation

The article analyzes the theory basis of weighing the evidence in common law and continental
law judicial tradition, its historical development and influence on the proof in modern
civil procedure in Russia. The study compares approaches to weighing the evidence in the
continental law tradition, based on the judicial free inner conviction, as well as in the
common law tradition, which is characterized by different standards of proof in civil and
criminal cases. The article substantiates the system of weighing the evidence adopted in
domestic law based on the synthesis of continental and common law in conjunction with
the principles of socialist justice in civil and criminal cases. The paper offers a review of
the current doctrine approaches and judicial practice in common law and continental
law countries regarding the criteria for weighing the evidence and determining the limits
of probability of judicial decisions. The differences in the content of the Anglo-American
standards of proof and legal rules for weighing the evidence in some countries of the
continental legal tradition, as well as in Russia, are not significant. Everything is determined
by the subjective theory of weighing the evidence. The level of judicial knowledge in civil
procedure may be lower than in criminal procedure, but this does not mean that there is no
need to increase it. The article revealed the prospects for establishing the limits of judicial
evidence sifting in terms of the weight of facts and the depth of knowledge.

Keywords: evidence; proof; weighing the evidence; relevance; admissibility; credibility;
sufficiency; standards of proof.


Abushenko D.B. Sudebnoe usmotrenie v grazhdanskom i arbitrazhnom protsesse [Judicial
Conviction in Civil and Commercial Procedure]. Moscow, 2002. (In Russian)
Afanasyev S.F. Pravo na spravedlivoe sudebnoe razbiratel’stvo i ego realizatsiya v sovremennom
grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve: Monografiya [The Right to a Fair Trial and Its
Implementation in Modern Civil Procedure: Monograph]. Saratov, 2009. (In Russian)
Amosov S.M. Sudebnoe poznanie v arbitrazhnom protsesse [Judicial Knowledge in
Arbitration Procedure]. Moscow, 2003. (In Russian)
1 Menger A. Das bürgerliche Recht und die besitzlosen Volksklassen. 4. Aufl. H. Laupp, 1908. S. 30.
Anderson, T., Schum, D., Twinning, W. Analysis of Evidence. 2nd ed. Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Baev O.Ya. Predmet kriminalistiki i teoriya sudebnykh dokazatel’stv [The Subject of
Forensic Science and the Theory of Forensic Evidence]. Pravovedenie = Jurisprudence,
1983, no. 3. (In Russian)
Belkin A.R. Teoriya dokazyvaniya: Nauchno-metodicheskoe posobie [Proof Theory:
Scientific and Methodological Manual]. Moscow, 1999. (In Russian)
Bentham J. Rationale of Judicial Evidence. Hunt & Clarke, 1827.
Berman H.J., Reid C.J. The Transformation of English Legal Science: From Hale to
Blackstone. Emory Law Journal, 1996, vol. 45(2).
Bonner A.T. Veroyatnoe ustanovlenie faktov pri razreshenii grazhdanskikh del [Probable
Establishment of Facts in Resolving Civil Cases]. In Bonner A.T. Izbrannye trudy
po grazhdanskomu protsessu [Selected Works on Civil Procedure]. St. Petersburg,
2005. (In Russian)
Brinkmann M. Das Beweismaß im Zivilprozess aus rechtsvergleichender Sicht. Carl
Heymanns, 2005.
Budylin S.L. Vnutrennee ubezhdenie ili balans veroyatnostej? Standarty dokazyvaniya
v Rossii i za rubezhom [Internal Conviction or Balance of Probabilities? Standards of
Proof in Russia and Abroad]. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossijskoj Federatsii
= Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, 2014, nos. 3,
4. (In Russian)
Clermont K.M. Standards of Proof Revisited. Vanderbilt Law Review, 2009, vol. 33.
Clermont K.M., Sherwin E. A Comparative View of Standards of Proof. American
Journal of Comparative Law, 2002, vol. 50.
Dolova M.O. Razvitie rossijskoj nauki grazhdanskogo protsessual’nogo prava [The Development
of Russian Doctrine of Civil Procedural Law]. Moscow, 2018. (In Russian)
Eisman A.A. Logika dokazyvaniya [The Logic of Evidence]. Moscow, 1971.
Eisman A.A. Sootnoshenie istiny i dostovernosti v ugolovnom protsesse [The Ratio of
Truth and Authenticity in Criminal Procedure]. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo = Soviet
State and Law, 1966, no. 6. (In Russian)
Fatkullin F.N. Obshchie problemy protsessual’nogo dokazyvaniya [General Problems
of Proof]. 2nd ed. Kazan, 1976. (In Russian)
Fokina M.A. Mekhanizm dokazyvaniya po grazhdanskim delam: teoretiko-pravovoe
issledovanie [The Mechanism of Evidence in Civil Cases: Theoretical Legal Research].
Moscow, 2010. (In Russian)
Friedman L.M. A History of American Law. 3rd ed. Touchstone, 2005.
Golovko L.V. (ed.) Kurs ugolovnogo protsessa [Course of Criminal Procedure]. Moscow,
2016. (In Russian)
Gottwald P. Die Flexible Beweismaß im Englischen und Deutschen Zivilprozess. In
Gottwald P., Jayme E., Schwab D. (eds.). Festschrift für Dieter Henrich zum 70. Geburtstag
1. Dezember 2000. Bielefeld, 2000.
Grishina N.V. Psikhologiya konflikta [Psychology of Conflict]. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg,
2008. (In Russian)
Grodzinsky M.M. Uchenie o dokazatel’stvakh i ego evolyutsiya [The Doctrine of Evidence
and Its Evolution]. Moscow, 1925. (In Russian)
Kudryavtseva E.V. Grazhdanskoe sudoproizvodstvo Anglii [Civil Proceedings in England].
Moscow, 2008. (In Russian)
Kudryavtseva E.V. Tendentsii razvitiya anglijskogo grazhdanskogo protsessual’nogo
prava posle prinyatiya Pravil grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva [Trends in the Development
of English Civil Procedural Law After the Adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure].
Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2012, no. 2. (In
Kukhta A.A. Dokazyvanie istiny v ugolovnom protsesse [Proving the Truth in Criminal
Procedure]. Nizhny Novgorod, 2009. (In Russian)
Kurylev S.V. Osnovy teorii dokazyvaniya v sovetskom pravosudii [Fundamentals of
the Theory of Evidence in the Soviet Justice]. Moscow, 1969. (In Russian)
Langbein J.H. The Historical Foundations of the Law of Evidence: A View from the
Ryder Sources. Columbia Law Review, 1996, vol. 96.
Laudan L. Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology. Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
Malinin M.I. Ubezhdenie sud’i v grazhdanskom protsesse [Conviction of a Judge in
Civil Procedure]. In Malinin M.I. Trudy po grazhdanskomu protsessu [Works on Civil
Procedure]. Moscow, 2014. (In Russian)
Menger A. Das bürgerliche Recht und die besitzlosen Volksklassen. 4. Aufl. H. Laupp,
Molchanov V.V. Osnovy teorii dokazatel’stv v grazhdanskom protsessual’nom prave
[Fundamentals of the Theory of Evidence in Civil Procedural Law]. Moscow, 2012. (In
Papkova O.A. Usmotrenie suda [Court Discretion]. Moscow, 2005. (In Russian)
Pechegin D.A. Sostyazatel’naya i rozysknaya modeli sudoproizvodstva v Mezhdunarodnom
ugolovnom sude [Adversarial and Investigative Models of Procedure in the
International Criminal Court]. Moscow, 2017. (In Russian)
Pollock F., Maitland F.W. The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I.
Cambridge University Press, 1898.
Popov B.V. Raspredelenie dokazatel’stv mezhdu storonami v grazhdanskom protsesse:
Kritiko-dogmaticheskoe issledovanie [Distribution of Evidence Between the Parties in
Civil Proceedings: A Critical and Dogmatic Study]. Kharkiv, 1905.
Posner R.A. An Economic Approach to the Law of Evidence. Stanford Law Review,
1999, vol. 51(6).
Prütting H. Beweislast und Beweismaß: Der Einfluss Leo Rosenbergs und Karl
Heinz Schwabs auf die Entwicklung eines modernen Beweisrechts. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess,
2010, bd. 123.
Puchinsky V.K. Grazhdanskij protsess SShA [Civil Procedure of the USA]. Moscow,
1979. (In Russian)
Puchinsky V.K. Otsenka dokazatel’stv v rossijskom grazhdanskom i arbitrazhnom
protsessual’nom prave [Weighing Evidence in Russian Civil and Commercial Procedural
Law]. Khozyajstvo i pravo = Economy and Law, 2005, no. 6. (In Russian)
Puchinsky V.K.; Bezbakh V.V. (ed.). Grazhdanskij protsess zarubezhnykh stran [Civil
Procedure of Foreign Countries]. Moscow, 2008. (In Russian)
Reshetnikova I.V. Dokazatel’stvennoe pravo Anglii i SShA [Evidence Law of England
and the United States]. Yekaterinburg, 1997. (In Russian)
Rosenberg L., Schwab K.-H., Gottwald P. Zivilprozessrecht. 16. Aufl. C.H. Beck,
Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Ocherki po istorii lingvistiki [Essays on the History of Linguistics].
Moscow, 1975. (In Russian)
Sakhnova T.V. Kurs grazhdanskogo protsessa [The Course of Civil Procedure]. 2nd ed.
Moscow, 2014. (In Russian)
Schauer F. On the Supposed Jury-Dependence of Evidence Law. University of Pennsylvania
Law Review, 2006, vol. 155.
Schweizer M. Beweiswürdigung und Beweismaß: Rationalität und Intuition. Mohr
Siebeck, 2015.
Schweizer M. The Civil Standard of Proof – What Is It, Actually? Preprints of the
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, 2013/12.
Smola A.A. Standarty, dokazyvanie i Verkhovnyj Sud [Standards, Evidence and the
Supreme Court]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossijskoj Federatsii = Bulletin
of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation, 2018, no. 8. (In Russian)
Soboleva A.K. Filologiya i teoriya prava: sovmestnye poiski budushchego [Philology
and the Theory of Law: A Joint Search for the Future]. In Kasatkina S.N. (ed.). Problemy
metodologii i filosofii prava [Problems of Methodology and Philosophy of Law].
Samara, 2014. (In Russian)
Taruffo M. Rethinking the Standards of Proof. American Journal of Comparative
Law, 2003, vol. 51.
Treushnikov M.K. Sudebnye dokazatel’stva [Judicial Evidence]. 5th ed. Moscow, 2016.
(In Russian)
Vaneeva L.A. Sudebnoe poznanie v sovetskom grazhdanskom protsesse [Judicial
Knowledge in Soviet Civil Procedure]. Vladivostok, 1972. (In Russian)
Vladimirov L.E. Uchenie ob ugolovnykh dokazatel’stvakh [The Doctrine of Criminal
Evidence]. St. Petersburg, 1910. (In Russian)
Wigmore J.H. A General Survey of the History of the Rules of Evidence. In Select
Essays in Anglo-American Legal History. Vol. 2. Little, Brown and Co., 1908.
Wigmore J.H. The Principles of Judicial Proof. Little, Brown and Co., 1913.
Wigmore J.H.; Tillers P. (ed.). Evidence in Trials at Common Law. Boston, Little
Brown & Co., 1983.
Yoko T. Erneute Überlegungen über das Beweismaß im Zivilprozess. Zur objektiven
Tatsachenfeststellung. Ritsumeikan Law Review, 2011, vol. 28.
Yudelson K.S. Teoreticheskie osnovy problemy dokazyvaniya v sovetskom grazhdanskom
protsesse [Theoretical Foundations of the Problem of Proof in Soviet Civil Procedure].
In Utevsky B.S. (ed.). Uchyonye zapiski VIuZI [Scientific Notes of the All-Union
Law Correspondence Institute]. Moscow, 1948. (In Russian)

Information about the author

Argunov V.V. (Moscow, Russia) – Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor
of the Department of Civil Procedure of the Law Faculty of the Lomonosov Moscow
State University (1, Bldg. 13-14 Leninskie Gory, GSP-1, Moscow, 119991, Russia;
Dolova M.O. (Moscow, Russia) – Candidate of Legal Sciences, Senior Researcher
of the Department of Civil Legislation and Procedure of the Institute of Legislation and
Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation (34 Bolshaya Cheryomushkinskaya
St., Moscow, 117218, Russia; e-mail: [email protected]).

Recommended citation

Argunov V.V., Dolova M.O. O tak nazyvaemykh standartakh dokazyvaniya
primenitel’no k otechestvennomu sudoproizvodstvu [On the So-Called Standards of Proof
in the Context of the Domestic Judicial Procedure]. Вестник гражданского процесса =
Herald of Civil Procedure, 2019, no. 2, p. 76–104. (In Russian) DOI: 10.24031/2226-

el_.png   it_.png   book.png