Concept and Significance of the Evaluation of Evidence
Die Evaluation of Evidence is a central element in German procedural law and refers to the judicial examination and assessment of the evidence presented in a proceeding regarding its credibility and probative value. It plays a decisive role in determining the outcome of a legal dispute and is of paramount importance in rendering judgments in civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings. The evaluation of evidence is not merely a formal assessment, but also involves a comprehensive substantive analysis of all relevant facts and evidence.
Legal Basis of the Evaluation of Evidence
Evaluation of Evidence in Civil Proceedings
In civil proceedings, Section 286 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) governs the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Accordingly, the court decides at its own discretion whether a factual allegation is considered proven. The evaluation of evidence is comprehensive and relates to all circumstances of the individual case.
Evaluation of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
In criminal proceedings, the relevant statutory basis is found in Section 261 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). Here too, the principle of free evaluation of evidence applies. The court must carefully examine all evidence presented—regardless of its nature—considering personal rights, the fairness of the proceedings, and the purpose of establishing the truth.
Evaluation of Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
The Administrative Court Procedures Act (VwGO), especially Section 108 para. 1 sentence 1, governs the free evaluation of evidence. The codes of procedure for fiscal and social courts follow this principle as well.
Principles and Limits of the Evaluation of Evidence
Free Evaluation of Evidence
The principle of the free evaluation of evidence means that the court is generally not bound by particular rules or fixed standards regarding the kind and weight of evidence, but judges the evidence according to its own conviction. This conviction, however, must be based on a rationally comprehensible foundation.
Objectivity and Duty to Fully Take Evidence
The evaluation of evidence must be objective, comprehensive, and methodologically comprehensible. There is a duty to consider all evidence presented, including possible contradictions, and to incorporate them into the process of forming a conviction.
Obligation to Provide Reasons
The court is obliged to present the key considerations underlying its evaluation of evidence in the judgment (§ 313 para. 3 ZPO, § 267 StPO, § 108 para. 1 VwGO). This reasoning serves to ensure comprehensibility and reviewability by the parties and the appellate court.
Limits of the Free Evaluation of Evidence
Despite the principle of free evaluation of evidence, there are statutory and constitutional limits, such as the prohibition of arbitrariness and the prohibition of manifest misjudgments. The evaluation of evidence must not be based exclusively on vague assumptions or prejudices.
Technical Aspects of the Evaluation of Evidence
Circumstantial and Direct Evidence
The evaluation of evidence distinguishes between direct evidence (such as a witness statement about a fact) and circumstantial evidence (establishing facts that point to another fact). Forming a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires particularly careful and transparent reasoning, especially in criminal proceedings.
Credibility and Plausibility
For witness testimonies and party statements, two key concepts must be considered: Credibility (of the person) and Plausibility (of the statement). The evaluation of evidence must distinguish whether there are doubts about the person (e.g. prior convictions, self-interest) or about the statement itself.
Expert Evidence
When obtaining expert opinions, particular emphasis is placed on evaluating the technical quality, consistency, and completeness of the opinion. Courts are not bound by the expert opinion, but must evaluate it critically.
Procedural Importance of the Evaluation of Evidence
Possibility of Appeal
The evaluation of evidence is generally the responsibility of the trial court and can only be reviewed to a limited extent on appeal, for example, if there have been violations of the laws of logic, empirical rules, or procedural errors.
Trial Court and Court of Appeal
The trial court has broad discretion in the evaluation of evidence. The court of appeal merely examines whether the evaluation was free of legal errors, i.e. whether, for example, no reasoning was employed that violated logic or general principles of experience.
Evaluation of Evidence and Standard of Proof
Principle of Conviction and Standard of Proof
Under German law, the evaluation of evidence requires the judge’s conviction to be reached; mere probability is usually insufficient, but rather a degree of certainty suitable for practical life is required—one that silences doubts without completely excluding them.
Evaluation of Evidence with Different Burdens of Proof
In individual cases, the evaluation of evidence also depends on the respective burden of proof and the required degree of conviction. Some areas of law contain differing regulations (for example, lower standards of proof in civil law for prima facie or connecting evidence).
Statutory and Doctrinal Classification
Statutory Design
The evaluation of evidence is expressly governed in the procedural codes (§ 286 ZPO, § 261 StPO, § 108 VwGO), so that the principle of free evaluation of evidence is applied generally in German court proceedings.
Doctrinal Significance
Of outstanding constitutional importance is ensuring that the court evaluates evidence independently and comprehensibly. The evaluation of evidence is subject to the general requirements for a fair and constitutional procedure.
References
- Thomas/Putzo, Code of Civil Procedure, current edition
- Löwe/Rosenberg, Code of Criminal Procedure
- Kopp/Schenke, Code of Administrative Court Procedure
In summary, the evaluation of evidence is the core of the decision-making process in court and ensures that judgments are based on a well-founded, thoroughly reviewed factual basis. It guarantees the right of the parties to a fair, transparent, and comprehensible procedure and is indispensable in modern procedural law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the basis of judicial evaluation of evidence in civil proceedings?
Judicial evaluation of evidence in civil proceedings is fundamentally based on Section 286 ZPO (free evaluation of evidence). Accordingly, the court is required to decide, taking into account the entirety of the proceedings and the outcome of any evidence-taking, at its own discretion whether an allegation is to be regarded as true or false. The evaluation of evidence does not occur arbitrarily, but demands that the judge draw on all essential sources of evidence such as witnesses, experts, documents, or visual inspection and provide reasoning that is understandable. The reasoning for the judgment must make it clear to third parties why the court followed certain offers of evidence or rejected them. It is crucial that the evaluation of evidence be comprehensive, consistent, and logically reasoned so that it can withstand possible appellate review.
What legal principles apply to the evaluation of evidence in criminal proceedings?
In criminal proceedings, the principles of free evaluation of evidence under Section 261 StPO apply. Here, the court decides based on its own discretion, derived from the main trial, whether a fact is present or not. However, evidence prohibitions, such as the exclusion of statements obtained in violation of the obligation to provide a caution, restrict the free evaluation of evidence. The principle ‘in case of doubt, in favor of the defendant’ (in dubio pro reo) must also always be taken into account in the judge’s formation of conviction. The judicial conviction must be supported by actual indications and be comprehensible for outsiders. The assessment of the evidence must also be free from errors, that is, be consistent, complete and logical.
To what extent is the court bound by previous evidence or expert opinions when evaluating evidence?
The court is generally not bound by previous evidence, findings, or the assessment by experts when evaluating evidence. The principle of free evaluation of evidence allows the court to depart from the findings or evaluations of earlier instances, provided it comes to a different conviction based on the evidence before it and personal impressions from the main hearing or evidence-taking. If the court departs from expert opinions, however, it is obliged to provide detailed reasons, especially when departing from the assessment of a recognized expert. The decisive factor always remains the persuasive power of the factual basis in the specific judgment.
What is the significance of circumstantial evidence in the evaluation of evidence?
Circumstantial evidence, especially in the evaluation of evidence in criminal law, plays a decisive role when direct evidence (e.g. due to the absence of witnesses) is not available. Circumstantial evidence comprises auxiliary facts from which the main fact can be inferred. For the judge’s conviction, the conclusion from the circumstantial evidence to the main fact to be proven must appear compelling or at least highly probable. The court must assess all identified circumstantial evidence, weigh them, and transparently explain in an overall assessment why it has drawn a particular conclusion from the whole set of circumstantial evidence. The evaluation of evidence using chains of circumstantial evidence is subject to the same strict standards as direct evidence.
When does an error in the evaluation of evidence occur and what are its effects?
An error in the evaluation of evidence occurs when the court’s assessment of the evidence violates the laws of logic, established empirical principles, or procedural law. If the grounds for the judgment are incomplete, contradictory, or not reasonably explained, this can also amount to an error in the evaluation of evidence. Such errors result, in appeal proceedings, in the judgment being set aside and the case being referred back to the lower court. However, the appellate review is limited to examining whether the evaluation of evidence was plausible, internally consistent, and complete, but does not involve a new assessment of the evidence. Only manifest errors justify intervention by the appellate court.
Does the court have to fully disclose its evaluation of evidence in the judgment?
Yes, pursuant to Section 313 para. 3 ZPO in civil law and Section 267 StPO in criminal law, the court is required to present its formation of conviction and thus its evaluation of evidence in comprehensible terms in the grounds for its decision. The reasons for the decision must be drafted in such a way that the parties, the appeals court, and third parties can understand which evidence was evaluated how and how the court arrived at its conviction. This requires a comprehensive, consistent, and documented assessment that shows why the court has followed or rejected particular offers of evidence. Deficiencies in the reasoning may render the judgment subject to appeal.
What is the procedure in the case of contradictory witness statements?
In the case of contradictory witness statements, the court is obliged to examine the plausibility of the statements and the credibility of the witnesses with particular care. It must weigh all factors for and against credibility and explain in the judgment why it attributes more weight to certain statements than to others. Points to be considered include the quality of the testimony, memory lapses, possible self-interest of the witnesses, tendencies to incriminate or exonerate, as well as the overall behavior of those involved. If such a differentiated analysis is lacking, this often constitutes a reviewable error in the evaluation of evidence on appeal.
