Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:22:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Landolfo Andrade de Souza.pdf: 1706067 bytes, checksum: c3f41df8c866866f22a3fd11abb9cfa4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-10-24 / There is no doubt that the modern civil procedure must be updated to cope with the substantive law needs and the new contemporary society dynamics. Likewise, such changes dispense legislative modifications, which often take a long time to be made. Thus, it s necessary to pursue the procedure s improvement by a more appropriate managing of the procedural techniques available for the judge, in the light of the constitutional guarantees. The rule for the burden of proof is within this perspective: it s one of the matters to which the doctrine devotes its attention in order to make the indispensable transformations in the procedural system to bring it closer to substantive law s reality. To this end, this work searched to examine how the burden of proof operates in the class actions, studying the reasons that authorize its change, since such possibility beyond the realm of consumer law - may correspond to a significant condition of effective protection of collective interests. For that purpose, one has used law doctrine, case law and deductive, inductive and analogical methods. The Federal Constitution and federal rules related to the burden of proof dogma and the collective interests protection have also been examined. The research has been split in for main parts. Firstly, some relevant aspects of the collective procedure have been studied. Then, the structural elements of the burden of proof have been analysed. The third part was dedicated to the conceptual elements, as well as the fundaments of applicability, including de lege lata, of the dynamic burden of proof theory in Brazilian law were outlined. In the fourth part, it has been demonstrated that the hipotheses that allow the flexibility of the general criteria for the distribution of the proof burdens are consistent with one of the most relevant preoccupations of procedural law jurists: the search for more effectiveness in the substantive field by the procedural technique refinement / Não há dúvidas de que o processo civil moderno deve atualizar-se para fazer frente às necessidades do direito material e da nova dinâmica da sociedade contemporânea. Tampouco se duvida que esta mudança prescinde de alterações legislativas, pois estas, muitas vezes, demoram a ocorrer. Impõe-se, então, buscar aprimorar o processo com o manejo mais adequado das técnicas processuais postas à disposição do juiz, à luz das garantias constitucionais. A regra sobre o ônus da prova se insere nesta perspectiva: constitui ela um dos pontos em que se debruça a doutrina para imprimir necessárias alterações no sistema processual, tornando-o mais próximo à realidade do direito material. Nesse propósito, este trabalho buscou apreciar como se comporta a regra do ônus da prova nas ações civis públicas, avaliando as razões que autorizariam a sua modificação, já que esta possibilidade para além dos campos do direito do consumidor pode importar significativa condição para a efetiva tutela dos interesses coletivos. Para tanto, valeu-se do estudo da doutrina e da jurisprudência, bem como se utilizaram os métodos dedutivo, indutivo e analógico. Examinaram-se a Constituição Federal e as normas federais pertinentes ao dogma do ônus da prova, bem como à defesa dos interesses coletivos. A pesquisa foi dividida em quatro partes principais. Na primeira, foram examinados alguns aspectos relevantes do direito processual coletivo. Na segunda, analisaram-se os principais aspectos do instituto do ônus da prova. Na terceira, foram fixados os elementos estruturais, bem como os fundamentos de aplicabilidade, inclusive de lege lata, da teoria do ônus dinâmico da prova no direito brasileiro. Na última parte, demonstrou-se que as hipóteses de flexibilização dos critérios gerais de repartição dos encargos probatórios encontram-se afinadas com uma das principais preocupações dos cultores do direito processual: buscar maior efetividade no plano material por meio do aprimoramento da técnica processual

稅務案件涉及稅捐核課之行政程序和爭端解決之訴訟程序，兩者皆採職權調查主義，當事人對於待證事實之主張及證據聲請不拘束行政機關與法院，其得依其職權就必要且可能之證據為調查。而因稅務案件量大且相關證據皆處於納稅義務人之管領範圍下，致職權調查待證事實困難，故有當事人協力義務之規範，兩者相互影響。若當事人不盡其協力義務將可能使證明度降低，並於審判最終待證事實仍真偽不明時，以客觀舉證責任為判決分配。本文分析現行法規範下行政與訴訟程序中有權機關職權調查、當事人協力義務、證明度調整與舉證責任之分配，並以營利事業所得稅常見之爭議為例，探討現行實務作法是否與理論一致，並於文末提出相關現行作法之修改或法規範之建議，以供參酌。 / Tax administrative lawsuits involve administrative procedures and administrative litigation. Both administrative procedures and administrative litigation follow the inquisitorial investigation. Tax authorities and courts can investigate the facts and circumstance according to their authority and are not restricted by the declaration of the parties. However, due to the fact of a large number of tax administrative lawsuits and tax information often accessible only to taxpayers, tax authorities and courts may encounter great difficulties in the inquisitorial investigation. Therefore, taxpayers are obligated to assist tax authorities to investigate the relevant facts and circumstance. Taxpayers’ obligation to assist tax authorties may have a counter-effect on tax authorities’ obligation to follow the inquisitorial investigation. When the cooperative obligation falls on the party, it may cause essening of the standard of proof. If there still not knows the truth at the end of final judgment, using objective burden of proof to allocate the judgment. This thesis study the relationship between the inquisitorial investigation of the authority, cooperative obligation of the taxpayer, standard of proof adjustments, and the current burden of proof of legal norms. By examining the tax administrative litigation cases concerning the Profit-Seeking Enterprise Income Tax, this thesis analyzes the discrepancy in the practice and the theory, and concludes with relevant suggestions to improve current practice and legal norms.

This thesis deals with the issue of causation in disputes relating to compensation of damage to health. The aim of this work is to give a comprehensive interpretation of this issue. The work presents possible approaches of proving a causality between illegal misconduct during treatment and the damage caused to a patient. In medico-legal disputes patient must carry the burden of proof. It also compares the European legislation in relation to the necessary degree of proof with the main focus on German legislation and institutes created by the case law of German courts. Furthermore it presents the interpretation of causality in terms of the Principles of European Tort Law. The work deals marginally with certain aspects of proceedings concerning compensation of damage to health and expert assessment.

La charge de la preuve constitue un concept original, qui porte le sceau des évolutions du temps et des fondements du Droit. Historiquement, la notion de charge de la preuve désigne une tâche individuelle, celle du plaideur qui doit, par son seul effort, convaincre le juge du bien-fondé de sa cause. Aujourd’hui, en raison de l’essor de l’idée de vérité et de la volonté de renforcer les liens de solidarité unissant les individus, elle est appréhendée comme une exigence générale de comportement imposant à tout justiciable de contribuer à la manifestation de la vérité. Or, il est inopportun d’assimiler l’ensemble des devoirs probatoires à des charges. De fait, seuls ceux dont un plaideur doit spontanément s’accomplir afin de faire triompher sa cause doivent être qualifiés ainsi. Cela permet alors de concevoir que la charge de la preuve n’impose pas uniquement des devoirs durant le procès mais, également, avant toute saisine du juge. Tenu de réunir des preuves et de les produire en justice, le titulaire de la charge de la preuve n’est pas toujours en mesure d’assumer la tâche qui lui incombe. Le législateur ou le juge peuvent alors fournir des remèdes en facilitant ou en dispensant le titulaire de la charge de la preuve d’accomplir ses devoirs. Rétablie dans sa cohérence, la charge de la preuve permet ainsi de comprendre l’utilité de certains mécanismes techniques et d’opérer une lecture nouvelle du droit positif. / The burden of proof constitutes an original concept which epitomizes the evolution of time and of the founding principles of law. Historically, the notion of burden of proof referred to the individual role of the litigant who, through his own effort, had to convince the judge of the soundness of his cause. Nowadays, considering the importance of truth in our society as well as the willingness to tighten solidarity between individuals, it is considered as a basic requirement for a litigant to contribute to the emergence of truth. Yet, it is inappropriate to make confusion between probationary duties and charges. As a matter of fact, only the duties that the litigant has to carry out in order to win over his cause can be qualified as burden of proof. This implies that the burden of proof not only imposes duties during the trial but also before the referral of the case to court. Bound to gather proofs and produce them in court, the incumbent is not always in a situation to assume the burden of the proof. Legal precedents (law, jurisprudence) can then be used to either facilitate or to exempt the former of his obligations. In light of this new coherence, the burden of proof facilitates the understanding of certain technical mechanisms and allows for a new reading of the applicable law.

The author challenges the terminology «legal presumptions» and «judicial presumptions», and rather refers to presumptions established by rules of presumption and to hominis presumptions. He argues that the best way to differentiate between them is by showing the contrast between «it shall be presumed» (syntagm proper to practical reasoning) and «it is presumable» (syntagm proper to theoretical reasoning). The text clarifies the relationship between the so-called hominis presumptions and the factual inferences or evidential inferences, in general. He answers the question of what the «it is presumed» syntagm (proper to the hominis presumptions) brings with respect to the «it is probable» syntagm (proper of all evidentiary inferences). / El autor cuestiona la terminología «presunciones legales» y «presunciones judiciales» y, más bien, se refiere a las presunciones establecidas por normas de presunción y a las presunciones hominis. Defiende que la mejor manera de diferenciar unas de otras es mostrando la distancia que media entre «debe presumirse» (sintagma propio del razonamiento práctico) y «es presumible» (sintagma propio del razonamiento teórico). El texto aclara las relaciones entre las llamadas presunciones hominis y las inferencias fácticas o inferencias probatorias, en general, respondiendo a la pregunta sobre qué aporta el sintagma «es presumible» (propio de las presunciones hominis) frente al sintagma «es probable» (propio de todas las inferencias probatorias).

O presente estudo examina a técnica da distribuição dinâmica do ônus da prova e a possibilidade de sua aplicação no direito brasileiro, incluindo a sua disciplina no Projeto do Novo Código de Processo Civil. Abordaremos as bases principiológicas da dinamização dos ônus probatórios, bem como os entendimentos doutrinários e jurisprudenciais que já sustentam a possibilidade da dinamização do ônus da prova com base no ordenamento jurídico atualmente vigente. Sustentaremos, todavia, que a adoção da técnica da dinamização do ônus da prova no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro seria cabível somente de lege ferenda, com a aprovação do Projeto do Novo CPC pelo Congresso Nacional. Por fim, no intuito de estabelecer os melhores critérios para utilização da técnica da distribuição dinâmica do ônus da prova, foram analisados os dispositivos contidos no Projeto do Novo CPC, para vislumbramos que a aplicação da técnica, deverá ser excepcional. Analisamos ainda que o magistrado brasileiro deverá aprimorar a sua função de organizador da fase instrutória do processo. Sustentaremos que a técnica da dinamização do ônus da prova é suplementar aos poderes instrutórios do juiz. Todavia, como existem limites materiais, de cunho prático, ao exercício dos poderes instrutórios do magistrado, a técnica da distribuição dinâmica do ônus da prova se mostra útil e eficaz ao sistema processual brasileiro. Assim, o juiz deverá se valer na sentença da técnica da dinamização do ônus da prova em desfavor da parte que deu causa à dificuldade ou impossibilidade de produção da prova, inviabilizando o acesso a determinado meio de prova. / The following essay examines the theory of dynamic distribution of the burden of proof and the possibility of its application in Brazilian law, including its discipline in the Project of the New Code of Civil Procedure. We will cover the principles related to the dynamic distribution of the burden of proof as well as the doctrinal and caselaw understanding that already support the possibility of the switch of the burden of proof based on the currently prevailing legal system. However, we will argue that the adoption of dynamic distribution of the burden of proof in Brazilian law would be applicable only by lege ferenda, with the approval of the New Code of Civil Procedure by the Congress. Finally, in order to establish the best criteria for use of the dynamic distribution of the burden of proof, the provisions contained in the Project of the New Code of Civil Procedure were analyzed to envision that the application of the technique should be exceptional. We will also analyze that the Brazilian judge should enhance its organizer function of proceedings phase. We will still sustain that the dynamic distribution of the burden of proof is additional in relation to the powers that the judge has in the ex officio proofs production. However, as there are material limits of the exercise of the Judges power in the ex officio proofs production, the technique of the the dynamic distribution of the burden of proof proves to be useful and effective in Brazilian legal system. Thus, the judge must take into consideration the techniques of the switch of the burden of proof, on the judgment, to the detriment of the party that gave rise to the difficulty or impossibility of evidence, preventing access to certain evidence.

The diploma thesis is focused on the accounting as an evidence, more specifically as a tool for procuring the proof while proving the facts claimed by the taxpayer. Firstly, there are described a financial and tax terms relevant for the topic. Then the rights and obligations of the tax administrator and taxpayer during the tax procedure are described. The last but one chapter deals with the burden of proof and with it´s transfer among the tax administrator and the taxpayer. In conclusion, an evidence that can be used in proving the facts are mentioned.

The legal concept of formal burden of proof of public prosecutor has been discussed for more than 17 years of legislative work on the new Criminal Procedure Code and an increased attention was also paid to it before by the legal science, at the same time with the enforcement of adversary elements of court proceedings. The legal concept in question was established and developed as part of the Anglo-Saxon type of criminal proceedings where trial is based on a dispute between the parties. This involves the exclusive procedural responsibility of public prosecutor to clarify the facts relevant to the indictment filed. Although it is possible to give a brief description of the legal concept in question in a single sentence, its enactment would affect the overall nature of the proceedings before the court and would also be reflected in other stages of the criminal proceedings. The aim of the dissertation was to analyse the prerequisites and consequences of the enactment of the formal burden of proof of public prosecutor in the Czech criminal proceedings. Given the origin of the legal concept, the crucial question was whether its adoption would necessarily constitute a total departure from the legal principles which the existing Criminal Procedure Code is based on or whether it is possible and appropriate...

隨著科學及社會經濟的進步，人類所遭受的外來意外傷害事故日漸增多。根據台灣保險事業發展中心針對人壽保險業被保險人死亡原因的調查結果顯示，意外事故高居第二位，亦因如此，國人對於傷害保險之潛在需求日益增長。時至今日，傷害保險已與傳統的人壽保險、產物保險成鼎足之勢。然而，因傷害保險理賠爭議涉訟的件數亦隨之增加，亦表示傷害保險本身同時也存在著許多爭議，實有研究之必要與價值。根據目前傷害保險的理賠爭議分析，大多集中於意外傷害認定相關的爭議問題，即「意外傷害」構成要素的意涵、因果關係及舉證責任的分配等。本文的主軸亦集中於此三項爭議問題作探討。 傷害保險事故為何及是否發生，影響保險人是否應負保險金給付責任，故如何認定傷害保險之保險事故即屬重要，亦為保險法第一百三十一條規範之主要目的，實有探究之必要。而除了傷害保險之保險事故應如何認定之外，認定損害之發生是否係導因於傷害保險之保險事故，亦即傷害保險之保險事故是否與損害之間具有因果關係，亦為是否須使保險人負保險金給付責任之要件之一，自亦應予說明。又訴訟中，應由何人就引起損害之事故屬於傷害保險之保險事故負舉證責任，亦影響當事人及利害關係人之權益甚深，實有討論之必要。是以，本文即針對傷害保險事故之認定，因果關係之判斷及傷害事故之舉證責任分配為分析，並附帶說明保險實務目前對於傷害保險常見之爭議問題所持之見解和趨勢。

保險已成為現今社會一重要經濟制度，與證券及銀行共同為金融支柱。而保險已成為每個人生活的必需品，扶助很多遭遇突然事故或災變的家庭度過難關。教科書或文章已經說了很多保險是自助人助的論述。國人從早期對保險的排斥，到現在台灣保險覆蓋率世界第一，每人平均擁有約三張保單，即可證明國人對保險的接受度已經提高。 但依財團法人消費金融評議中心統計，前述金融三大支柱中，以保險的爭議最多。在2015年，產、壽險業申訴及評議案件占整體均為20%及60%以上，而銀行約在10%上下。究其原因，乃保險之經營技術較為特殊，且其為無形「產品」消費者若欲感受保險的存在，幾乎是在理賠階段。而理賠終究有不符合條件之情況發生；再者，消費者與保險公司理賠認定認知差距亦是爭議所在；最後，(保險)消費者主觀意念認為購買保險就是為了發生事故時能得到理賠，故更加深與保險公司間之對立。尤有甚者，以詐欺手段取得保險金，在申請與審理間，保險公司付出相當大的成本查證，但同時也因處理費時而造成客戶不滿(關於『保險詐欺』壽險理賠先進及前輩已有多篇文章論述，且非本文主題，故不予贅述，或容不才爾後以專文研究)。 本人在壽險業界任理賠人十有七年，有感理賠爭議來自三大類：一、壽險：以違反告知義務被保險公司解除契約之爭議為大宗；二、健康保險：此又可分為二類(一)手術爭議及(二)是否有住院必要之爭議。近年則以(二)為大宗；三、傷害險：在業界，傷害險的爭議件數並非最多，但所造成的影響卻為最大。本文以傷害險為研究主題，係以所造成的影響最大為發想；另外，保險法第一三一條所規定之文義是否足以弭平傷害險爭議(尤其在經過多次條文修正後)。從諸多案件中可以發現，一般人對保險法第一三一條條文「I傷害保險人於被保險人遭受意外傷害及其所致殘廢或死亡時，負給付保險金額之責。II前項意外傷害，指非由疾病引起之外來突發事故所致者。」常有誤解，將之解釋為「非疾病即屬意外」顯然解讀錯誤！蓋若「非疾病即屬意外」此一論點成立，則按邏輯將無法解釋「老邁」身故此一自然現象(雖然最高法院民事判決一○三年度台上字第六一二號有稱『按意外傷害保險係承保意外傷害所致之損失，凡傷害或死亡之原因，非罹患疾病、細菌感染、器官老化衰竭等身體內部因素所致，而係外來、偶然等不可預見之事故所生，除保險契約另有特約不保之事項外，均為承保範圍內之意外事故。)按判定是否符合保險上之意外傷害，不能僅僅以「非疾病即屬意外」一語帶過，因為它還必須符合突發、偶然、不可預料等要件。 另外，當被保險人受到意外事故而致傷、殘或死亡時，而傷害結果摻有疾病因素「貢獻」其中時；或承保事故與非承保事故互有因果關係時，該次傷害結果得否認定為傷害保險之承保事故，則必須運用「近因原則」加以判斷。 保險人因承保事故發生而有給付責任，為因契約而成立「債」之關係。但事故是否為承保範圍，則為關鍵所在。於壽險，生存、死亡或殘廢理賠，認定較為簡單；但於傷害保險，被保險人是否因為條款約定之「意外傷害事故」致成傷害，因為事過境遷，事實很難認定。於法院繫屬時，被保險人(受益人)與保險公司間之攻防，即與舉證責任息息相關。若有一方舉證不能，即有受訴訟不利益風險。 / Insurance is now a major part of the economy system. It plays an important role like stocks and bonds, or banks in the financial industry and it is now essential in our everyday life. Insurance helps the families that experienced accidents or tragedies overcome the difficulties. Lots of textbooks and articles have let us know that the insurance is the statement of cooperation. People in Taiwan had been rejecting the insurance in early days; however, until now, the usage rate of insurance in Taiwan has become the top class in the whole world with the average three policies per person, which can prove that insurance is more acceptable nowadays. Nevertheless, according to the research of Financial Ombudsman Institution, among the three important roles in the financial industry, Insurance, Stocks and Bonds, and Banks, Insurance is the most controversial. In 2015, the percentage of appeals and arbitration of Non-life and life insurance industry are over 20% and 60%. However, the banks have only around 10%. To explain this kind of circumstance, it is because that the value proposition of insurance industry is more special than others. The products of the insurance, the policies, are mostly intangible, which that the customers cannot recognize the product easily and only when the claims have been settled, the customers can reach the product directly. But, the claims are not always settled as long as the conditions are not met. Moreover, the recognition of the claims are not the same from different points of view and that is the controversial point. Lastly, the customers regard the policies as the guarantees of the claims, which mean that they think once they bought the policies, the claims will be settled anyway as long as the accidents happen. Therefore, this thought strengthens the opposition of the customers to the companies. Furthermore, some people try to get the settlement using fraudulent methods. Such kind of activities costs the companies a lot to verify during the phase of application and processing. At the same time, due to the investigation, it also brings the dissatisfaction of the customers. I have been working in the department of claim of life insurance for 17 years and I have learnt that the controversies are basically from three categories, Life Insurance, Health Insurance, and Injury Insurance. For Life Insurance, most of the conflicts are from the obligation of disclose of the customers, and if the obligation is not fulfilled, the company will terminate the contract in the end. For Health Insurance, it can be categorized into two, one is surgery conflicts and the essentiality of being hospitalized and most of them are the second one. For the last, Injury Insurance, it doesn’t have the most cases of the conflicts, but it is the most influential. This paper focuses on Injury Insurance due to the characteristics of most influential and whether the definition of Article 131(A personal accident insurer is obligated to pay the insured amount when the insured suffers injury by accident, or becomes disabled or dies on account of such injury. The term "injury by accident" as used in the preceding paragraph refers to physical harm caused by unforeseen external events other than illness.), Insurance Act, can eliminate the conflicts of Injury Insurance or not. From lots of cases of Injury Insurance, normal people are not clear about the Article and misunderstand the contents as either disease or accidents. If the statement is true, then the natural death cannot be explained as an accident. The recognition of an accident cannot solely by such a brief definition because it has to meet the conditions of “Sudden”, “Accidental”, and “Unpredictable”. In addition, when the insured is injured, disabled, or dead caused by accidents and the outcome of the injury contains the elements of disease, or when the insured peril and the non-insured peril have causal relationships, whether the outcome can be recognized as the insured peril or not depends on the “Proximate Cause”. The insurer has the obligation to pay once the insured peril occur because of the contract and form the relationship of debt. However, the key of the issue is whether the accident is in the scope of the insured peril. In Life Insurance, the recognition of survival, death, or disability is simpler compared to Injury Insurance which contains more uncertain elements. On the other hand, in Injury Insurance, whether the insured is injured because of the insured peril or not is not easy to verify due to the fact is not the same as it happened. During the suit, the burden of proof has a great relationship with the defendant and the plaintiff. As long as one cannot provide any proof, he has the risks of losing the suit.