<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="client.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<article article-type="other">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id/>
<issn/>
<banner>
<href>banner.jpg</href>
<size width="100%"/>
</banner>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<copyright></copyright>
<title-group>
<article-title>The Plausible Proof in Turkish and German Civil Law</article-title>
</title-group>

<author>Hakan Albayrak </author>

<aff>Sel&#231;uk University, Turkey. </aff>

</article-meta></front>
<body>
<abstract>
<title>ABSTRACT</title>
<p> The standard of proof in civil cases is set out in &#167; 286 ZPO and is called the &#8220;ordinary standard of proof&#8221; (&#8220;Regelbeweismass&#8221;), which is relevant if no specifie rules are applicable. Under certain circumstances the law requires the plaintiff to make the facts essential to his case &#8220;plausible&#8221; (&#8220;glaubhaft&#8221;). The practical importance of this rule is limited to requests for interim measures. According to &#167; 294 ZPO the party who has to make a certain fact plausible can do so by all ordinary means of proof plus affidavits. The only restriction is that all pieces of evidence must be available at the day of trial; no delay caused by the need to compel a witness etc. is tolerable. In any event, one should not try to make an argument that the standard of proof in ordinary cases has to be very high, just because &#167; 294 ZPO de fines a lower standard. &#167; 294 ZPO deals with the specifie situation that a judge has to base her decision on an incomplete amount of evidence. &#167; 294 ZPO only tries to appreciate this specifie situation by pointing out that truth is not the intrinsic goal of these procedures. </p><p><italic>Keywords: </italic>Law, Flexible, Proof, Glaubhaftmachung, Plausible, Turkish law. </p>
</abstract>
<fpdf>
<href>pdflogo.jpg</href>
<hpdf>PRG258</hpdf>
</fpdf>
</body>
</article>
