FEATURES OF EVIDENCE AND PROOF IN CASES CONCERNING COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY ARMED AGGRESSION

Abstract

Background. Proof is one of the key institutions of civil procedure, as it directly determines whether a court will render a decision in favor of one of the parties and the effective implementation of the adversarial principle. Ukrainian civil procedural legislation establishes the obligation of the parties to prove the circumstances of the case by submitting evidence that is relevant, admissible, reliable, and sufficient. In this context, the standard of proof acquires particular significance as a category that is relatively new to domestic civil procedural scholarship. The relevance of this study is due to the active development of judicial practice in cases concerning compensation for damage caused by the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, which have acquired the characteristics of a distinct category of civil cases. The purpose of the article is to identify the specific features of proof in this category of disputes, taking into account their subject matter of proof and the applicable standard of proof.

Methods. The methodological framework of the study is based on general scientific and special legal methods, including analysis, synthesis, comparative legal, and formal legal methods. The research combines a theoretical analysis of doctrinal approaches to the standard of proof in civil proceedings with an empirical study of judicial practice. The study analyzes decisions of courts of first instance in cases where proceedings were initiated after 24 February 2022, using the tools of the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, as well as relevant legal positions of the Supreme Court сформовані after the 2019 reform of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Results. The study identifies the characteristic features of the subject matter of proof and the means of proof in cases concerning compensation for damage caused by armed aggression. A differentiated approach of the courts to the standard of proof depending on the type of damage has been revealed: the application of a heightened standard of reasonable conviction in cases concerning compensation for material damage, and the standard of greater probability in cases concerning compensation for non-pecuniary (moral) damage. The typical nature of the evidentiary base has been substantiated, which predominantly consists of written and electronic evidence.

Conclusions. The analysis of decisions of courts of first instance and the legal positions of the Supreme Court indicates that judicial practice is consistent in the scope and relevance of the evidence required to prove the fact of damage and the causal link between the damage and the event that caused it.