View More View Less
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $25.00

1 year subscription (Individual Only)

USD  $576.00

Since Ancient Rome, presumption has occupied a strong position in jurisprudence. It is considered a legal category, a certain device of legal technique, which provides an opportunity to move from a known fact and its relation to other facts to an implied or supposed ‘fact’ when there is no or limited knowledge. In practice the use of presumptions helps to shorten the span of time used to solve a particular case. In such a way it saves means for the state and all the parties involved in legal procedure, and draws less on intellectual resources of participants involved in legal proceedings.

Variety and prevalence of presumptions is based on three elements: social policy of the state, aspiration to optimize the law and aspiration to provide flexibility, consistency and clarity in legal relations. In nowadays jurisprudence, classification of presumptions into legal (in the narrow sense) and factual, deniable and undeniable ones are the most important because any legal presumption, in the broad sense, causes certain procedural consequences. Usually one of procedural parties gets relief from the burden of proof and upon the other one the burden is transferred (praesumptio iuris et de iure is an exception to this rule). Different presumptions serve different purposes, e.g. helping to go from a well-known fact to a supposedly known fact or to balance various potentials (opportunities) of the parties to the process in order to make them as equal as possible. This is due to the fact that the same term is used for various elements of legal technique that are of different origin and form.

However, not all legal categories which fall under the term of ‘presumption’ can be recognised as being proper presumptions. In this article, while proceeding with the study of the conception of presumption,1 the meaning of presumptions is revealed, the way they are expressed is presented and, with the help of mathematical argumentation, an attempt is made to explain why iuris et de iure forms of presumptions should not fall under the category of legal presumptions.

  • Bernardo, Antonio Eugenio, Talley, Eric, Welch, Ivo, ‘A Theory of Legal Presumptions’ (2000) 16/1 The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 149.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Donatuti, Guido, Studi di diritto Romano (Giuffrè 1976).

  • Fankhauser, Roland, Widmer Lüchinger, Corinne, Klingler, Rafael, Seiler, Benedikt, Das Zivilrecht und seine Durchsetzung (Schulthess Verlag 2016).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ferrini, Contardo, Studi vari di diritto Romano e moderno (sulle obbligazioni, sul negozio giuridico, sulle presunzioni) (vol. 3 Hoepli 1929).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Franck, Thomas M.; Prows, Peter, ‘The Role of Presumptions in International Tribunals’ (2005) 4/2 The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 197245.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • James, Fleming Jr., ‘Burdens of Proof’ (1961) 47/51 Virginia Law Review Journal 5170.

  • John Murray v the United Kingdom ECHR 1996-I 18731/91.

  • Kahneman, Daniel, Thinking, fast and slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2011).

  • Kenny, Courtney Stanhope, Outlines of Criminal Law (Macmillan 1915).

  • Larkin, Murl A., Herasimchuk, Cathleen C., ‘Presumptions’ in Texas Rules of Evidence Handbook (2nd edn, Houston Law Review 1993) 24180.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lenhoff, Arthur, ‘The Law of Evidence: A Comparative Study Based Essentially on Austrian and New York Law’ (1954) 3/3 The American Journal of Comparative Law 31344.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McBaine, James Patterson, ‘Presumptions: Are They Evidence’ (1938) 26/5 California Law Review Journal 51963.

  • Mendonca, Daniel, ‘Presumptions’ (1998) 11/4 Ratio Juris 399412.

  • Murphy, Peter, A Practical Approach to Evidence (Blackstone Press Limited 1992).

  • Park, Roger C.; Leonard, David P.; Goldberg, Steven H., Evidence Law: A student’s guide to the law of evidence as applied to American trials (West Group 1998).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pétur Thór Sigurđsson v Iceland ECHR 2003-IV 39731/98.

  • Pfeiffer, Thomas, ‘The contribution of arbitration to the harmonization of procedural laws in Europe’ (2014) 19/2 Uniform Law Review Journal 199217.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rudzkis, Tomas; Panomariovas, Artūras, ‘Legal Presumptions in the Context of Contemporary Criminal Justice. Formulation of a Paradigm’ (2016) 57/4 Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies 46276.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Salabiaku v France (1988) Series A no 141.

  • Talamanca, Mario, Istituzioni di diritto Romano (Giuffrè 1990).

  • Voci, Pasquale, Istituzioni di diritto Romano (Giuffrè 1996).

  • Walton, Douglas, ‘A Dialogical Theory of Presumption’ (2008) 16/2 Artificial Intelligence and Law 20943.

  • 1.

    Federal Coal Mine Health Act of 1969 (2010) <http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v33n3/v33n3p20.pdf> accessed July 1, 2012.

  • 2.

    Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania (2012) <https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/en/legalActSearch> accessed July 11, 2012.

  • 3.

    Code of Criminal Proceedings of the Republic of Poland (2012) <http://www.lex.pl/akt-prawny/-/akt/dz-u-97-89-555-u> accessed July 9, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Code of Criminal Proceedings of the Republic of Lithuania (2012) <https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/ legalAct/TAR.EC588C321777> accessed July 15, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Macagno, F., Dialectical and heuristic arguments: presumptions and burden of proof (2012) <http://fabriziomacagno.altervista.org/Publications2/article_last.pdf> accessed July 10, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation