000			03638naaaa2200493uu 4500
001			https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/26774
020			_a978-961-6842-48-8
024	7		_a10.4335/978-961-6842-48-8 _cdoi
041	0		_aEnglish
042			_adc
072		7	_aJPH _2bicssc
100	1		_aOudin, Martin _4auth
245	1	0	_aEvidence in Civil Law - France
260			_bInstitute for Local Self-Government and Public Procurement Maribor _c2015
300			_a1 electronic resource (55 p.)
506	0		_aOpen Access _2star _fUnrestricted online access
520			_aThe French Law of evidence is at the crossroad between procedural law and civil law. As part of the procedural law, it is governed by general principles set out by the Code de procédure civile, such as the contradictory principle, the principle of public hearing or the free disposition principle, which means that the parties define the framework of the proceeding and that the judge cannot base his decision on facts that were not put forward by the parties themselves. It is also the Code de procédure civile that organises the respective roles of the judge and the parties for the taking of evidence: since 1976, it imposes a – rather complex – balance between adversarial and inquisitorial principles. Other general principles were set by case law, e.g. the principle that no one can pre-constitute evidence in his own favour or the principle of fair evidence. On the other hand, more substantive rules are to be found in the Code civil. These rules mix two systems, the system of the preuve morale, applicable in some specific litigation, and the system of the preuve légale, which is clearly dominant in civil litigation. In the first system, evidence is in principle free, which means not only that any mode of proof is admissible, but also that assessment of evidence by the judges is free. In the second one, only determined means of evidence are admissible and their probative force is often set out by law. A majority of evidence rules derive more or less directly from this summa divisio. In fact, the predominance of the preuve légale system has made the French system of evidence rather rigid, in particular regarding the exaggerated importance of written evidence.
540			_aCreative Commons _fhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ _2cc _4https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
546			_aEnglish
650		7	_aPolitical structure & processes _2bicssc
653			_ainquisitorial principle
653			_aburden of proof
653			_awritten evidence
653			_afree disposition principle
653			_aadversarial principle
653			_aiura novit curia
653			_atestimonial evidence
653			_aorality
653			_afair evidence
653			_acontradictory principle
653			_astandard of proof
653			_aCivil procedure
653			_aCourt of Cassation (France)
653			_aFrance
653			_aLaw of France
653			_aLetters rogatory
653			_aLexisNexis
653			_aNapoleonic Code
653			_aRelevance (law)
856	4	0	_awww.oapen.org _uhttps://library.oapen.org/bitstream/20.500.12657/31999/1/620432.pdf _70 _zDOAB: download the publication
856	4	0	_awww.oapen.org _uhttps://library.oapen.org/bitstream/20.500.12657/31999/1/620432.pdf _70 _zDOAB: download the publication
856	4	0	_awww.oapen.org _uhttps://library.oapen.org/bitstream/20.500.12657/31999/1/620432.pdf _70 _zDOAB: download the publication
856	4	0	_awww.oapen.org _uhttps://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/26774 _70 _zDOAB: description of the publication
999			_c54866 _d54866