The role of judicial evidence in evidence in administrative cases "a comparative study"

Abstract

The nature of proof in general lies in being a means of establishing evidence before the judiciary of the existence of a specific legal incident, with the aim of arranging its legal effects, and it is stipulated that this incident be the subject of a dispute between the litigants and entail a legal effect by changing or canceling the existing legal centers.

 It is not disputed between the litigants, in addition to the impermissibility of preoccupation with the judiciary by proving facts that do not have any legal effect and therefore there is no point in proving them. And since the evidence before the administrative judiciary raises difficulties that make the plaintiff against the administration a weak party that needs the judge’s support to enable him to recover his right from the administration or remove its abuse of this right in light of the privileges it enjoys and the documents it possesses that it will not, of course, submit to the court voluntarily, as long as This would have had a negative impact on her legal position in the case.

 The French and Egyptian Council of State created judicial evidence in order to reduce the burden of proof charged by the plaintiff, in order to ensure a balance between the two sides of the administrative litigation. Given the importance of judicial evidence in the field of evidence in administrative cases, the importance of studying the role of judicial evidence in proof before the courts of the State Council has emerged.