Judicial Perspective On The Legal Causation Of Administrative Compensation

As one of the most essential factor of administrative compensation,the legal causation connects illegal acts with its caused results;a request of administrative compensation will not be able to stand without a proper legal causation.Therefore various theories,including the condition theory,the causal theory,and the equivalent causality theory have been developed.In validation of legal causation,certain factors have to be intercepted and analyzed.In practice,the court usually conducts such interceptions by taking direct effects and damages in cases into consideration.The way a court defines a legal causation varies through the development of “the principle of imputation”.Interceptions mentioned above have also been profoundly influenced by such principle.Prior to the amendment of the state compensation law,the principle of imputation,by defining "infringement" as "fault",focused on the illegality of results.While after the amendment,the definition of principle of imputation has changed.It now judges the legal causation based on illegality of acts;therefore as long as the act is defined illegal,the legal causation stands.Based on the principle of imputation,3 ways have been developed to properly define a legal causation: 1)the onus of proof;2)the presumption of causation;3)the identification and evaluation.First of all,the onus of proof in administrative compensation is on the plaintiff.Only if the plaintiff has provided initial proofs and is no longer able to provide further proofs due to defender’s reason,will the defender(the administration)need to proof its act’s validation.Secondly,in the presumption of causation,a solid legal causation only stands when following requests met: 1)legitimately authorization;2)the possibility of the conduction;3)elimination of other possible factors to the damage.Finally,identification and evaluation are essential in solving uncertainties such as unknown damaged reasons and values.In practice,a legal causation can be complex : it usually consists of various factors,pointing one single result.Therefore the court will have to distinguish “conditions” between “reasons”.It can become trick due to the complexity of the case.Among reasons,the court has to further distinguish “main reasons” and “minor reasons”,according to the coherence instead of chronological orders,which can be misguiding.