On the differentiation of standards of proof in civil cases

   Subject. Russian civil procedure has adopted a differentiated approach to standards of proof in civil cases: not only is the “balance of probabilities” standard applied, but also prima facie, “clear and convincing evidence,” and “beyond a reasonable doubt”. This approach entails a number of difficulties, ranging from finding reasons to lower or raise the standard of particular categories of cases to identifying the permissible extent of differentiation within the context of legal certainty and predictability of judicial proceedings. The standards of proof inevitably influence well-established institutions of Russian procedural law (burden of proof, judicial review, etc.), at times requiring a reassessment of traditional approaches.

   The purpose of the study. To describe the legal issues arising from the differentiation of standards of proof in cases involving damage compensation and bankruptcy proceedings.

   Methodology. Methods of analysis and comparison based on practice of the Supreme Arbitration Court, of the Supreme Court, of scientific research in the field of civil procedural law.

  The main results of research and the field of their application. The application of the “clear and convincing evidence” standard by the Supreme Court in cases involving compensation for damages caused by a person authorised to act on behalf of a legal entity may be justified from a policy and legal standpoint, but it is inappropriate in terms of the actual accessibility of evidence for the parties involved in the proceedings. When the burden of proving the reasonableness and good faith of actions is shifted to the defendant, the standard of proof is reduced to the “balance of probabilities.” The application of heightened standards of proof in bankruptcy cases naturally increases the interest of creditors and bankruptcy trustees in seeking to revise court rulings issued prior to the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings. This, in turn, highlights the importance of defining the permissible scope of creditors’ rights to challenge such rulings.

   Conclusion. The adjustment of the standard of proof – whether upward or downward – must not be used as a situational tool. The adoption of a standard other than the “balance of probabilities” in civil litigation must be grounded in substantial justification and aligned with established procedural rules.

1. Akuzhinov A., Doroshina O., Kultaev V., Skugarevskiy D., Fatalieva D. The More You Want – the Less You Get: A Study of the Relationship between the Size of Claims and Their Enforceability in Russian Arbitrazh Courts. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2022, no. 11, pp. 161–190. DOI: 10.37239/2500-2643-2022-17-11-161-190. (In Russ.).

2. Bakulin A.F., Kuzmina A.V. Weak party in business-to-business contract: standards and burden of proof. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2020, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 203–250. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2020-10-2-203-250. (In Russ.).

3. Budylin S. Dominant Creditor Case: When a Creditor is Liable for the Bankrupt's Business Results. Yuridicheskaya rabota v kreditnoi organizatsii, 2022, no. 4, pp. 41–55. (In Russ.).

4. Budylin S.L. Standards of Proof in Bankruptcy. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2018, no. 11, pp. 130–157. (In Russ.).

5. Reshetnikova I.V. Standard of Proof. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitration and civil procedure, 2021, no. 8, pp. 26–27. (In Russ.).

6. Tai Yu.V., Budylin S.L. Evidentiary Presumptions. Cooking Porridge from an Axe: Commentary to the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 7 February 2023 No. 6-P. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2023, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 113–144. (In Russ.).

7. Yaroshenko T.V., Dykhanov I.V. Standards of Proving in Civil Proceedings: Legal Regulation Problems and Prospects. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitration and civil procedure, 2022, no. 3, pp. 32–34. (In Russ.).

8. Baibak V.V. New Wording of the Article 393 of Russian Civil Code: General Rules on Compensation for Losses Incurred by Breach of an Obligation. Zakon, 2016, no. 8, pp. 121–130. (In Russ.).

9. Smola A. Standards, Evidence and the Supreme Court. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2018, no. 8, pp. 129–165. (In Russ.).

10. Budylin S.L. Internal Conviction or Balance of Probabilities? Standards of Proof in Russia and Abroad. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2014, no. 3, pp. 25–57. (In Russ.).

11. Yaltsev A.A. Inner Conviction of a Judge and Objective Standards of Proof: Integral Elements of the Single System? Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitration and civil procedure, 2020, no. 9, pp. 36–42; no. 10, pp. 31–36. (In Russ.).

12. Karapetov A.G., Kosarev A.S. Standards of Proof: Analytical and Empirical Research, Suppl. to Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii, no. 5 (63), May 2019. Moscow, Zakon Publ., 2019. 96 p. (In Russ.).

13. Makeeva A.A. Search of Balance in Regulation of Liability of an Individual Executive Body. Pravo i biznes = Law and business, 2020, no. 4, pp. 52–60. (In Russ.).

14. Shitkina I.S., Butkova O.V. Director Liability Risk and Business Initiative: Searching for Balance. Zakon, 2019, no. 1, pp. 38–49. (In Russ.).

15. Stelmakh A.V., Esmanskiy A.A. Procedure for establishing claims of creditors in bankruptcy: current issues and potential changes. Arbitrazhnye spory, 2021, no. 3, pp. 105–122. (In Russ.).

16. Zvyagina N.S. Problems of Institutionalization of the Standard of Proving in the National Civil Procedure. Rossiiskii sud'ya = Russian judge, 2022, no. 9, pp. 3–8. (In Russ.).

17. Karapetov A.G. (ed.). Basic provisions of civil law, Article-by-article commentary on articles 1 - 16.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Moscow, M-Logos Publ., 2020. 1469 p. (In Russ.).

18. Kuznetsov A.A. A Commentary to the Ruling of VAS RF Plenum “On Some Issues of Damages Compensation by Members of a Legal Entity's Organs” No. 62, 30 July 2013. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2013, no. 10, pp. 42–65. (In Russ.).

19. Lozovskaya S.V. Determinacy of Law and Standards of Proving. Gosudarstvennaya vlast' i mestnoe samoupravlenie = State Power and Local Self-government, 2023, no. 5, pp. 15–19. (In Russ.).

20. Glushkov A.N. Case Law of Application of Standards of Proving in Russia. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitration and civil procedure, 2019, no. 5, pp. 38–43. (In Russ.).

21. Lukhmanov M.I. Establishment of the factual causation in tort. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava = Civil law review, 2021, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 86–132. (In Russ.)

22. Miftakhutdinov R. Limited Relativity of Court Decisions in Bankruptcy: How Can Bona Fide Creditors Protect Themselves against an Unjustified Claim Approved by a Court Decision. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2018, no. 4, pp. 104–125. (In Russ.).

23. Shevchenko I.M. On the issue of subjective limits of judicial acts validity in bankruptcy cases. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitration and civil procedure, 2015, no. 10, pp. 55–60. (In Russ.).

24. Zhestovskaia D. On the Allowance of Claims Confirmed by a Judgment: from the Principle of Relativity to the Phenomenon of Opposability. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2021, no. 10, pp. 111–145. (In Russ.).