Distribution of Responsibilities on Proving in Cases on Reimbursement for Moral (Non-Pecuniary) Damage

Abstract

The authors of the article study the problem of distributing responsibilities on proving in cases of reimbursement for moral (non-pecuniary) damage. At the same time, it has been noted that each party is currently obliged to prove those circumstances, to which it refers to as the basis of its requirements and objections. Thus, the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine of 2004 introduced a new concept of adversarial proceedings into civil procedure, where the parties are obliged to play an active role in judicial proving (Art. 12 of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine).
 The authors of the paper have concluded that both the parties and all persons who are authorized to collect and present evidence, take part in their verification and evaluation in accordance with the procedure established by law are subjects in all civil cases, as well as in cases on reimbursement of moral (non -pecuniary) damage. Accordingly, it is also applied to the court, which should be actively involved in the proving process.
 The authors of the research have concluded that the process of proving provides the distribution of responsibilities between the subjects, when their will coincides with respect to the subject matter of the dispute. Another thing when such a will has different content. It is the specific feature of the adversarial principle, which is the basis for the distribution of responsibilities on proving, when the parties defend their interests presenting the necessary evidence in the case, pursuing the purpose – to obtain a positive judgment for themselves.
 It has been emphasized as a result of the research that legal presumptions play a significant role in the distribution of responsibilities on proving, that is, the assumptions enshrined in the law on the existence of certain facts about other facts related to them. The presumption releases the party, who benefits of its establishment, from proving the fact. Cases for the reimbursement of moral (non -pecuniary) damage are no exception to this. This category of cases benefits from the consideration of the issue on the existence of the following presumptions: presumption of moral (non-pecuniary) damage; presumption of illegality of actions (omission) of a causer of moral (non-pecuniary) damage; presumption of the guilt of a causer of moral (non-pecuniary) damage.
 According to the results of the conducted research, the authors have made conclusions.