Research On The Path Of Judicial Resolution Of The Plaintiff's Dilemma Of Proof In Administrative Compensation Litigation

Plaintiff 's dilemma of proof is a situation that,in the case of administrative compensation,the law enforcement act of administrative subject that illegally violates also violate the legal procedures or due process,resulting in that administrative counterpart cannot collect and retain the evidence to prove his claim or the evidence proof power can-not satisfy the judge,and thus leave the original administrative act was confirmed illegal but plaintiff unable to obtain reasonable compensation.In judicial practice,the dilemma manifested in various forms,including the proof of the subject of compensation,the content of compensation,the causal relationship and the proof of self-exemption.These eventually lead to the objective existence of the loss but cannot be compensated,or the amount is far from the litigation request,and forced the plaintiff to repeatedly seek various remedies,which make the judicial relief formalized.There are many reasons for the formation of the plaintiff's dilemma.First of all,the legislation on the distribution of burden of proof in the administrative compensation litigation is over-principle,requiring the judge to refine the judicial practice.Secondly,the defendant's violation of the administrative actions of the procedure directly led to the dilemma,so it needs judicial practice to return to justice.Thirdly,the judge did not recognize the essential attributes of administrative compensation litigation,which made the judicial position of the judge ambiguous,leading to the lack of justification.Finally,administrative compensation litigation is closely related to the exercise of public power and the effect of social stability.Especially when dealing with group disputes,courts have to selectively ignore something and hold a conservative stance.In order to achieve substantive justice,the court reduced the plaintiff's dilemma by transferring the burden of proof between the plaintiff and defendant,reducing the standards of evidence provided by the plaintiff and Presumption of facts.However,in practice,the court abstractly uses the concept of “preliminary proof” as a condition for the transfer of burden of proof,but it has not been further explained in the specific application.On the scale of fact presumption and discretion,differences and uncertainties between different courts and between different levels of trial are great.In terms of the application of deductions of proof standards,factual presumptions and discretionary standards,the differences and uncertainties between different courts and trials are greater.There are three reasons for the limitations and deficiencies in the judiciary.The first is the consideration of social effects such as the effect of law enforcement and the influence of policies,which makes the discretion less clear.Second,the operating mechanism of the court's internal trial powers restricts the judicial activities.Third,achieving the balance between damage and compensation is always the basic purpose of the court.Based on this,the best way to solve this dilemma is not legislation but judicature.In the first place,we can use the theory of proof impediment to clarify the components of the plaintiff's dilemma of proof,including the subjective and objective elements,in order to solve the problem of "the cause of the defendant" in the article.Then,on this basis,judges need to start from various aspects and combine the relevant factors that need to be considered.On the one hand,the judge should follow the fixed logic and standards to determine the preliminary evidence,and on the other hand,the judge should apply the reasonable standard of proof according to the result of examination,and expand the presumption Range.During litigation,it is necessary toattach importance to the fulfillment of procedural obligations,including the plaintiff's presenting obligations and clarifying obligations,the judges' obligation of elucidation and paying attention to Court hearing.