Concept and significance of plausibility in law
Definition and general classification
Die Plausibility is a central term in the legal context and describes the quality of statements, allegations, evidence, and persons to be regarded as truthful, reliable, and convincing from the perspective of a court or authority. It is crucial for the assessment of statements in the context of judicial and administrative proceedings and plays an essential role in verifying the likelihood of alleged facts.
The term differs from credibility (which concerns the trustworthiness of persons) and from assessment of evidence (the final evaluation of the evidence in the proceedings). Plausibility constitutes a distinct aspect within the presentation and admission of evidence.
Plausibility in procedural law
Differentiation: plausibility, credibility and evidence
In procedural law, various evaluative terms must be distinguished from one another. While the credibility of a person concerns their general truthfulness or trustworthiness, Plausibility relates to the concrete content of an individual statement. The question of plausibility thus concerns not the entire person, but exclusively their specific statement or a particular piece of evidence.
In contrast, the actual evidenceserves the purpose of proving a fact with the degree of certainty required for the respective proceeding.
Plausibility and standard of proof
In numerous areas of law, especially in civil and administrative proceedings, it is not necessary for certain decisions to have full conviction of the existence of a fact (full proof), but only the substantiation of plausibility according to § 294 ZPO or comparable provisions. For the substantiation of plausibility it suffices for the court to deem the relevant fact likely, whereby the evidence and statements presented must be plausible.
Legal basis
The most important legal provisions regarding substantiation of plausibility and thus plausibility itself can be found, among others, in:
- § 294 ZPO (German Code of Civil Procedure)
- § 920 ZPO (Preliminary injunction)
- § 36 para. 4 VwVfG (Administrative Procedure Act)
- Art. 417 ZPO (public documents)
Other procedural codes, such as the German Criminal Procedure Code (StPO) or the Social Court Act (SGG), also contain corresponding regulations.
Examination of plausibility in practice
Criteria for assessing the plausibility of statements
The assessment of plausibility is based on a variety of factors that are considered individually or in their entirety. The most important criteria include:
- Internal coherence: A statement is considered plausible if it is consistent, detailed, and credible.
- Consistency: Repeated statements of the same content under different conditions increase plausibility.
- Spontaneity: Statements given unprepared and spontaneously are considered particularly plausible.
- Logical comprehensibility: The statement must be compatible with other known facts.
- Appropriateness and completeness: A plausible statement is comprehensive and contains no inexplicable gaps.
- Tendencies to self-incrimination: Statements that apparently run counter to the person’s own interests often speak in favor of plausibility.
Courts and authorities rely not only on substantive criteria when evaluating plausibility, but also on accompanying circumstances such as the personal situation of the declarant.
Significance of evidence for plausibility
In the context of substantiation of plausibility, various types of evidence are used, including:
- Affidavits
- Documents
- Testimonies and party statements
- Expert reports
- Objects of inspection
Their plausibility is examined and assessed in light of the above criteria.
Plausibility in substantive and procedural law
Civil law
In civil law, plausibility is particularly relevant in the context of preliminary injunctions, attachment proceedings and other summary protection proceedings, since in these cases full proof is regularly not required, but rather the probable truth of the alleged facts suffices.
Administrative law
In administrative proceedings, applicants must, for purposes of substantiation of plausibility, convincingly present and demonstrate facts to establish a claim. In this context, § 36 para. 4 VwVfG applies.
Criminal law
In criminal law, plausibility is particularly important in the assessment of statements within the framework of free evaluation of evidence. For less serious crimes, substantiation of plausibility may be sufficient under certain circumstances.
Methods for increasing plausibility
Affidavit
Die affidavit is a formal means of enhancing the plausibility of a written statement. It may be given according to the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure or comparable regulations, is subject to criminal consequences in the event of a false statement, and thus increases the weight of the fact to be substantiated.
Written and other evidence
Original documents, witness statements under certain conditions, as well as expert opinions also serve to substantiate facts and increase their plausibility.
Assessment of plausibility by the court
Die free evaluation of evidence by the court under § 286 ZPO includes the assessment of plausibility. The court decides, considering all circumstances of the individual case, whether a statement, witness, or item of evidence is to be believed and whether the required degree of probability under statutory provisions has been achieved.
Plausibility in international legal comparison
Plausibility also plays an essential role in other legal systems. In many countries, in summary proceedings or for interim legal protection, instead of full proof, reliance is placed on the plausibility of submissions and evidence.
Summary
Die Plausibility is a complex, legally significant term referring to statements, evidence, as well as their evaluation by courts and authorities. It is of central importance in all areas of German procedural law and forms the basis for the summary determination of facts, especially in summary proceedings and in the context of substantiation of plausibility. The careful examination and evaluation of plausibility is based on generally accepted criteria and has far-reaching effects on the outcome of proceedings.
See also:
- Evidential value
- credibility
- Standard of proof
- Free evaluation of evidence
- Affidavit
Legal sources:
- § 294 ZPO, § 286 ZPO, Art. 417 ZPO
- § 920 ZPO
- § 36 para. 4 VwVfG
Frequently asked questions
What role does plausibility play in judicial proceedings?
Plausibility plays a central role in judicial proceedings, as it is crucial for the assessment of witness statements, party submissions, and presented evidence. The court must regularly decide to what extent statements or evidence are plausible in order to establish the facts of the case. Unlike the assessment of evidence, which requires conviction of the true facts, substantiation of plausibility requires only a predominant likelihood. This is particularly important in the context of preliminary injunctions or attachment proceedings, where the court generally needs to make a preliminary assessment quickly and on a summary basis. The plausibility of information can be established through affidavits, documents, expert opinions, or other suitable means, with the court independently assessing the suitability of the substantiation in each case.
How does plausibility differ from credibility?
Legally, there is an essential difference between plausibility and credibility: Plausibility refers to the content of a statement or piece of evidence—that is, whether the alleged facts are likely to be true. Credibility, in contrast, concerns the person making the statement—that is, whether they are regarded as reliable and truthful. In court, judges must assess both the credibility of a person and the plausibility of their submissions. Factors such as personality profile, prior convictions, motives, and also external inconsistencies in the statements may be taken into account.
What types of evidence are admissible for substantiation of plausibility in civil proceedings?
In civil proceedings, in principle all types of evidence admissible for full proof are also admissible for substantiation of plausibility, with particular emphasis on documentary evidence and affidavits. In addition, testimony from third parties, statements by the parties themselves, or expert opinions may be used. Unlike strict evidence proceedings, for substantiation of plausibility, a less formal presentation usually suffices, so, for example, copies or summary statements can be considered. The court decides within the framework of free assessment of evidence whether the available means are suitable to make the alleged facts appear plausible.
What are the requirements for an affidavit used for substantiation of plausibility?
An affidavit used for substantiation of plausibility must be comprehensible in content and formulated specifically; general or unsubstantial allegations are insufficient. The affidavit must be personally signed, and the declaration must be made explicitly in the form of an affidavit. The declarant must personally state that they believe the described facts to be true to the best of their knowledge and belief. The court can independently assess the plausibility of the affidavit and is not obliged to accept it without further review, particularly if there are reasons for doubt.
When is substantiation of plausibility sufficient instead of full proof?
In a legal context, substantiation of plausibility is always sufficient when the law does not explicitly require strict full proof, but it is enough to demonstrate a particular circumstance with a predominant probability. This is especially the case in preliminary legal protection proceedings, such as preliminary injunctions, attachments, or in some payment order proceedings. Individual procedural admissibility requirements (e.g., applications for legal aid) can also be proven by substantiation of plausibility. The legislator provides for a reduction of the standard of proof to ensure effective legal protection when swift action is required.
What legal consequences may result from false substantiation of plausibility?
Providing false facts in the context of substantiation of plausibility, especially in connection with an affidavit, can lead to significant criminal consequences. Under § 156 StGB, anyone who makes such a declaration before an authority authorized to receive affidavits and knowingly makes a false statement is criminally liable. In addition, intentional or grossly negligent false statements can have procedural consequences, such as liability for damages, rejection of applications for injunctions, or the imposition of court orders. Furthermore, the credibility of the party may suffer greatly in subsequent proceedings.
