The article is devoted to the introduction of the standard of proof “probability of evidence” into the economic proceedings. The article covers the standard of proof, as well as approaches to the definition of concept of standard of proof that prevail in modern procedural doctrine. Each of the types of standards of proof has been examined. The article provides insight into the foreign experience of using the standards of proof in general, as well as the standard of proof “probability of evidence” in particular. It has been established that in the Anglo-American legal family there are two most common standards of proof: 1) “beyond a reasonable doubt” for criminal cases; 2) “preponderance of evidence, balance of probabilities” for civil/commercial cases. The legal system of common law is based on the fact that for the formation of a judicial conviction there is no need for the absolute mathematical accuracy of confirmation of data available in the case, but only such a degree of probability is important that allows the court to dispel doubts in a particular case. It was also established that foreign jurisprudence distinguishes two variations of the raised “civil” standard of proof: the “flexible standard” and the “prior probability approach”. Intermediate standards of proof used in the United States have also been investigated. Particular attention is paid to such an intermediate standard as “clear and convincing evidence”. The article covers the role of the standard of proof “probability of evidence”. Particular attention is paid to the approaches that can be followed by judges or legislators when choosing a standard of proof to ensure the unity of judicial practice and equality of participants in the trial. The article refers to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It also covers the standard of proof “probability of proof” in the practice of the Supreme Court. The article analyzes and systematizes, summarizes the key legal positions on the application of the standard of proof “probability of evidence” in the current practice of the Supreme Court.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Twining W, Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays (2-nd ed) (Cambridge University Press 2006) (in English).

 2. Vapniarchuk V, Teoriia i praktyka kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia (Iurait 2017) (in Ukrainian).

3. Pilkov K, Teoriia i praktyka dokazuvannia u mizhnarodnomu komertsiinomu arbitrazhi (Osvita Ukrainy 2016) (in Ukrainian).

Edited and translated books

4. Lezhe R, Velikie pravovye sistemy sovremennosti: sravnitel’no-pravovoj podhod (per s fr, Volters Kluver 2009) (in Russian).

5. Fletcher Dzh, Naumov A, Osnovnye koncepcii sovremennogo ugolovnogo prava (per s angl, Jurist 1998) (in Russian).

Journal articles

 6. Bennett B, ‘Evidence: Clear and Convincing Proof: Appellate Review’ (1944) 32 California Law Review 75.

7. McBaine J P, ‘Burden of proof: Degrees of Belief’ [1944] 32 (3) California Law Review 262–3. 8. Meyers A, ‘Rejecting the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard for Proof of Incompetence’ (1997) 87 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1034.

9. Redmayne M, ‘Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation’ [1999] 62 (2) The Modern Law Review 167–195.

10. Schwartz D, Seaman C, ‘Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation: An Experiment from Patent Law’ [2013] 26 (2) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 430–5.

11. Sherwin E, ‘Clear and Convincing Evidence of Testamentary Intent: The Search for a Compromise Between Formality and Adjudicative Justice’ [2002] 34 (2) Cornell Law Faculty Publications 25.

12. Budylin S, ‘Shtrafnye ubytki. Teper’ i v Rossii?’ (2013) 4 Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava 19–52 (in Russian).

13. Karapetov A, Kosarev A, ‘Standarty dokazyvanija: analiticheskoe i jempiricheskoe issledovanie’ (2019) 5 Vestnik jekonomicheskogo pravosudija Rossijskoj Federacii. Prilozhenie k Ezhemesjachnomu zhurnalu 10 (in Russian).

14. Overchuk S, ‘Stanovlennia instytutu prysiazhnykh v umovakh nabrannia chynnosti Kryminalnym protsesualnym kodeksom Ukrainy’ [2012] 2 (6) Chasopys Natsionalnoho universytetu “Ostrozka akademiia”. Seriia “Pravo” 1–4 (in Ukrainian).

15. Pilkov K, ‘Vlastyvosti dokaziv ta kryterii yikh otsiniuvannia’ (2020) 4 Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo 95 (in Ukrainian).

16. Ratushna B, ‘Standart dokazuvannia yak kryterii dostovirnosti rezultatu sudovoho piznannia’ (2012) 6 Pravo Ukrainy 282–90 (in Ukrainian).

17. Riabchenko Yu, ‘Standart dokazuvannia: dosvid zastosuvannia ta perspektyvy zaprovadzhennia’ (2020) 10 Naukovyi yurydychnyi zhurnal 122–8 (in Ukrainian).

18. Rieznikova V, V Shcherbyna, ‘Suchasni tendentsii rozvytku hospodarskoho protsesu Ukrainy’ (2017) 9 Pravo Ukrainy 9–27 (in Ukrainian).

19. Ruda T, ‘Kryterii dostatnosti pry otsintsi dokaziv u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy i SShA: porivnialno-pravovyi analiz’ (2011) 88 Visnyk Kyivskoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Yurydychni nauky 106–10 (in Ukrainian).

20. Skriabin O, Tonne N, ‘Sud prysiazhnykh za novym Kryminalno-protsesualnym kodeksom Ukrainy’ (2014) 72 Aktualni problemy derzhavy i prava 400–6 (in Ukrainian).

21. Stepanenko A, ‘Problemy vyznachennia standartu dokazuvannia “poza rozumnym sumnivom”’ (2014) 6 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 228–30 <http://lsej. org.ua/6_2014/63.pdf> (accessed: 30.08.2021) (in Ukrainian).

22. Stoian A, ‘Trystupeneva hradatsiia standartiv dokazuvannia v administratyvnomu protsesi’ (2021) 1 Forum prava 25–36 (in Ukrainian).

Conference papers

23. But I, ‘Standart dokazuvannia “balans ymovirnostei” u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi’ Pravove zhyttia suchasnoi Ukrainy: materialy Mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf., t 2 (Arakelian M red, Helvetyka 2020) 324–7 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

24. Nikolenko L, ‘Dokazuvannia v hospodarskomu sudochynstvi’ (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2004) 19 (in Ukrainian).

25. Stepanenko A, ‘Standart dokazuvannia “poza rozumnym sumnivom” v kryminalnomu provadzhenni’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2017) 7 (in Ukrainian).