| Abstract [eng] |
Distribution of the Burden of Proof in Civil Proceedings The distribution of the burden of proof in Lithuania’s civil proceedings is analyzed in this master 's thesis. The distribution of the burden of proof is sought to be disclosed by indicating the value of the proof, based on the principles of adversarial proceedings, equality and proportionality. Aspects of establishing material truth are also discussed in this thesis. After examining these aspects, it will be stated that the truth in any given civil case should be established without violating goals of Civil Proceedings Code (thereafter referred as ‘CPC’), legal principles and human rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. In addition, according to the legal doctrine, the concept of the burden of proof is more precise than that specified in Article 178 of the CPC. Litigants involved in civil proceedings are also examined in order to establish the nature of the burden of proof. After examining the parties to the proceedings, it can be argued that the burden of proof falls on the parties with an interest in the outcome of the case, which should be distributed by the court. The burden of proof in civil cases is distributed in accordance with the general rule established by the CPC, special rules or substantive legal norms establishing a different order of the apportion of the burden of proof, therefore these rules are also analyzed in this master's thesis. Recent case law is also examined to identify issues and consequences of incorrect apportion of the burden of proof in civil proceedings. Based on the analysis in this thesis, it is argued that if the court does not distribute the burden of proof correctly or the court does not distribute burden of proof at all, justice is often not served, there is no substantive truth established, length of proceedings increases, legal costs increases, and parties to the dispute experience more negative emotions in the litigation process. Therefore this thesis concludes stating that the courts should be more proactive and systematic in analyzing and apportioning both procedural and substantive rules of law in the context of distributin the burden of proof as well as the courts should not deviate from the precedents already established in cases of similar nature. |
