On The Distribution Of Burden Of Proof In Administrative

In the field of administrative litigation the scholars discuss about the burden of prooftheory always revolves around the administrative repeal litigation."Administrative ProcedureLaw" and the judicial interpretation of the law in china view that defendants should bear theburden of proof of the matters already has been provided, but the scope of responsibility ofthe burden of proof between the plaintiffs and defendants regulations is unclear, the refereemaybe lack convincing enough if the judges made in accordance with the content of theone-sided and single law, then injustice occurs when misjudged the situation. Therefore, wemust prove a reasonable allocation of administrative repeal litigation in cases responsibility toensure the correctness of the referee, in order to promote judicial authority to establish, andultimately achieve justice.The first part of article introduces the article discusses the necessity for administrativerepeal litigation allocation of he burden of proof. Legislation on the allocation of the burdenof proof of the existence of administrative proceedings have large deffect, in view of theimportance of administrative repeal litigation in the administrative proceedings by type ofsystem, the writer discuss the allocation of the burden of proof in administrative repeallitigation as a starting point for how reasonable in the field of administrative proceedingsallocated the burden of proof to provide a new perspective to improve the accuracy of theresults of Magistrates. Firstly, the object of the part of the administrative repeal litigation islimited to the relative allocation of responsibilities people have requested the court to revokethe administrative punishment of acts of administrative decision, the administrative repeallitigation in the administrative litigation system occupies a very important position areintroduced to explain the reason of this article why defines the administrative repeal litigationin the area of burden of proof. Secondly, the burden of proof and the analysis of thedifference between objective and subjective burden of proof by the introduction of theconcept of burden of proof, the burden of proof of the scope of the article is limited toobjective burden of proof, and the administrative repeal litigation to prove the reasonsdiscussed in the allocation of responsibilities clarification: helping to clarify the parties shallbear their own areas of responsibility to prove that a more accurate judge referee will make,maintaining essential fairness between the parties; preservation of evidence in favor of theparties to promote administration according to law; curbing administrative wanton, avoiding excessive litigation.The second part of article sort out and assess that the main points of administrativeproceedings the burden of proof theory of scholars in Germany and Japan, and administrativeproceedings before the introduction of the prevailing view of burden of proof in china.administrative proceedings to prove the theory of many responsibilities assigned,representative of the legal presumption that “the negative fact”“the norms”“regulateamendment”“discretion” the expectations theory, at this stage the German scholars will "regulate said," As Chief Litigation Tong said the burden of proof allocated in court cases inmore than a reflected. Following the Meiji Restoration, Japan and Germany by theadministrative law theory of civil law, in World War II and then studied the theory of commonlaw countries, so the administrative law theory unique. Japanese administrative litigationburden of proof doctrine constantly evolving, anyone from the public in accordance with therule of law when it comes to doctrine based on that classification comes from legalrequirements summarized the constitutional order that comes from the obligation toinvestigate the substance that various theories flourishing, as the burden of proof theoryinjection of fresh blood. Japan is still at this stage,"said the legal requirements classified " asTong said," summed up the constitutional order said " more and more scholars andpractitioners to be sure of. Our burden of proof in administrative proceedings perspectivefocused on administrative burden of proof is the civil action suit "who advocates, who theburden of proof," the projection and the executive must assume all responsibility for itsadministrative acts made.The third part tries to prove the responsibility of the country to discuss how to allocateby the analysis stage of administrative proceedings to prove the defect liability legislation inthe field of administrative repeal litigation and compare to the administrative proceedings inGermany, Japan to prove the theory of responsibility assigned to compare the merits of acomprehensive, provide a reference direction for our administrative proceedings the burden ofproof theory. In hopes of establishing a culture of rule-based administrative repeal litigation toprove allocation of responsibilities mode. Meanwhile, citing the case together, analyzing theadvantages and disadvantages of various prove liability doctrine applies in specific cases, andthe court ruling or judgment made Rongchang typical, for example, practitioners have "legalrequirements Classification say" apply to specific cases the facts presented should adhere tothe "legal requirements classification say" led,"said induction constitutional order" and the "essence said," to supplement the allocation rules. Finally, whether the standard will be madeex officio administrative act is divided into administrative acts and administrative acts uponapplication made in accordance with the terms of reference madeto "legal requirementsClassification say" use to the specific substantive law, the final proof of our proposedadministrative proceedings expectations and prospects liability legislation.