Standards of Proof in Ukrainian Procedural Law: Sectoral Conditionality and New Features
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.170.335161Keywords:
procedural law, proceedings, standards of proof, balance of probabilities, preponderance of the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, favor defensionis, in dubio pro actione, in dubio pro reoAbstract
In the context of bringing Ukrainian legislation closer to European standards and unifying legal terminology, it is appropriate to use the term “standard of proof” as a procedural guideline that the court should follow when deciding a case. Thanks to such standards, the court is able to assess how effectively the parties have fulfilled their burden of proof and whether they have been able to convince the court of the correctness of their arguments. Taking into account the works of domestic and foreign scholars, analysis of legislation and established judicial practice, the system and content of standards of proof in civil, administrative and criminal proceedings have been analyzed. This assessment of the peculiarities of the functioning of standards of proof in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights serves as a benchmark for procedural law in terms of the application of certain standards of proof in various legal spheres. It is proposed to use the following basic types of standards of proof in national procedural law: “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence” “beyond reasonable doubt” and “clear and convincing evidence” the rules and cases of use of which should be useful in the administration of justice. It has been established that the characteristic features of the relevant types of judicial proceedings determine the peculiarities of the application of certain standards of proof. It has been established that each of the standards of proof has its own content, which, on the one hand, provides for the presence of a set of relevant, admissible, and reliable evidence, and on the other hand, determines the level of probability of establishing the circumstances relating to the disputed legal relations; it is this level of knowledge that is a necessary prerequisite for making a well-founded procedural decision. It is emphasized that the distinction between basic and additional standards of procedural evidence is a very important element of domestic judicial proceedings, as it will contribute to the development of a uniform approach to procedural decisions and procedural actions by all subjects of evidence in various types of court proceedings, which improves the effectiveness of evidentiary activities.
References
But, I.O. (2020). Application of the Balance of Probabilities Standard of Proof in Judicial Practice. Journal of the Kyiv University of Law, 4, 227-233. https://doi.org/10.36695/2219-5521.4.2020.40.
Engel, C. (2009). Preponderance of the Evidence versus Intime Conviction: A Behavioral Perspective on a Conflict between American and Continental European Law. Vermont law Review, 33, 435-467. Retrieved from https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/13-Engel-Book-3-Vol.-33.pdf.
Luspenyk, D.D. (2019). Evidence in civil proceedings: what's new in the Code of Civil Procedure and why the court is empowered to demand evidence. Retrieved from https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pres-centr/zmi/622362/.
Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmonds [1985] UKHL 15 (May 16, 1985) 1 WLR 948. Retrieved from https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1985/15.html.
Muniesa, A. (2018). The Principle of In Dubio Pro Reo & The Standard of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/principle-dubio-pro-reo-standard-proof-beyond-doubt-ana-muniesa.
Preponderance of Evidence: Meaning & Legal Breakdown. (2020). Valiente Mott. Retrieved from: https://valientemott.com/legal-terminology/preponderance-of-evidence/.
Sokalyuk, V.P. (2024). Existing standards of proof and inner conviction of a judge when making decisions on a case. South Ukrainian Legal Journal, 1, 182-189. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32850/sulj.2024.1.29.
Ruda, T.V. (2011). Sufficiency criterion in assessing evidence in civil proceedings in Ukraine and the USA: comparative legal analysis. Bulletin of the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Series: Legal Sciences, 88, 106-110. Retrieved from http://visnyk.law.knu.ua/images/pdf/88_2011.pdf.
Vapnyarchuk, V. (2020). Criminal Procedure Standard of Proof. Bulletin of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 1(80), 100-112. Retrieved from https://visnyk.kh.ua/web/uploads/pdf/ilovepdf_com-100-112.pdf.
Skupinskyі, O.V., & Нnidenko, V.I. (2020). Prima facie evidence in the practice of the ECtHR. Current problems of law: theory and practice, 1(39), 110-118. https://doi.org/10.33216/2218-5461-2020-39-1-110-118.
Nor, V., Mazur, M., & Slyusarchuk, K. (2021). Standards of proof in criminal justice of Ukraine: the essence of the concept and the purpose of implementation. Cadernos de Dereito Actual, 15, Núm. Ordinario, 09-36. Retrieved from https://www.cadernosdedereitoactual.es/index.php/cadernos/article/view/667/323.
Polyuk, Y.I. (2023). Problems of application of standards of proof in civil proceedings. Academic Visions, 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10441361.
Stoyan, A.V. (2024). Standards of Evidence in Administrative Proceedings. Ph.D. Thesis. Odesa: National University "Odesa Law Academy".
Resolution of the Supreme Court in the case No. 924/233/18. (June 25, 2020). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/9005757.
Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in the case No. 129/1033/13-ts. (March 18, 2020). Retrieved from https://zakononline.com.ua/court-decisions/show/88952196.
Resolution of the Supreme Court in the case No. 645/5557/16-ts. (September 21, 2022). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/106815377.
Resolution of the Supreme Court in the case No. 560/3734/22. (November 18, 2022). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/107399267.
Resolution of the Supreme Court in the case No. 902/567/21. (October 25, 2023). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/115030890.
Concerns: Unequal position of participants in a trial concerning the burden of proof: The European Convention on Human Rights and national case-law (2006). Supplement to Human rights information Bulletin, 71. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/hrib71suppl/1680096d95.
Eremenko, E.V. (2021). The concept of “asymmetry of proof” as a component of the doctrine of favor defensionis. Legal scientific electronic journal, 11, 683-685. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2021-11/172.
Motorygina, M.G. (2018). The defense party in court proceedings in the first instance. Kharkiv: Oberig.
Bubalo, L., & Pajic, D. (2019). In dubio pro reo principle in modern criminal procedure. See Law Journal, 1(6), 85-95.
Koroyed, S.O. (2023). The phenomenon of procedural formalism in the judicial practice of civil proceedings. International scientific conference. Częstochowa, the Republic of Poland. November, 1-2, 58-61.
Clermont, K.M., & Sherwin, E. (2002). А Comparative View of Standards of Proof. American Journal of Comparative Law, 50(2). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.285832.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Сергій Васильєв

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.