行政赔偿案件中原被告举证责任辨析

Analysis on the Burden of Proof of the Plaintiff and the Defendant in Administrative Compensation Cases

尽管《行政诉讼法》第38条第2款明确规定了行政赔偿案件中原被告的举证责任,但是理论及实务界对原被告举证责任的认识仍有分歧,尤其当原告请求的赔偿损害数额无法查清时,被告是否承担客观举证责任,存在不同观点,这直接导致原告的权益能否得到司法保护。通过对举证责任的含义及《行政诉讼法》关于举证责任规定的综合分析,应该明确,在行政赔偿案件中,一般情况下,原告承担举证责任,包括主观举证责任与客观举证责任,因被告原因导致原告无法举证的特殊情形下,被告的行为构成证明妨碍,举证责任倒置,由被告承担客观举证责任,原告只承担主观举证责任,应该降低原告的证明标准。经法院调查后有关损失数额事实仍然无法确定时,法官应该酌情裁量赔偿数额,需要明确法官酌情裁量权的前提条件与审查标准,加强判决书的说理性。

Although paragraph 2 of article 38 of the Administrative Litigation Law stipulates the burden of proof of the plaintiff and the defendant in administrative compensation cases, there are still divergent views on the burden of proof of the plaintiff and the defendant in theory and practice. Especially when the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff cannot be ascertained, there are different views on whether the defendant bears the objective burden of proof, which directly leads to whether the plaintiff’s rights and interests can be judicially protected. Through the comprehensive analysis of the meaning of burden of proof and the provisions of the burden of proof in the Administrative Litigation Law, it should be clear that in administrative compensation cases, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof in general, including the subjective burden of proof and the objective burden of proof. Under the special circumstances where the plaintiff is unable to prove due to the defendant’s reasons, the defendant’s behavior constitutes spoliation of evidence and the burden of proof is inverted, and the defendant assumes the objective burden of proof, while the plaintiff only bears the subjective burden of proof and should lower the plaintiff’s standard of proof. When the fact about the amount of loss is still uncertain after the investigation by the court, the judge should decide the amount of compensation at his discretion. It is necessary to clarify the preconditions and review criteria of the judge’s discretion and strengthen the reasonableness of the judgment.