اتفاق الخصوم على تعديل دليل الإثبات المدني

Abstract EN

The preference for evidence over another by strengthening one of them occurs most often at the will of the legislator or judge according to a personal conviction related to the most likely party, and objectively related to the most likely evidence.

As evidence that is more powerful and effective in proving the truth than the weighted evidence, which can be termed "legal weighting", however, the legal weighting that is the origin of the proof may be given as an exception, which can be termed "consensual weighting", Which means: “The litigants agree on the preponderance of a certain evidence over another in proving a certain right.

” In light of this exception, several questions arise : The extent of the permissibility of the litigants agreeing to prove a specific legal fact, with evidence opposing the legal text that the proof was made according to it? And is it permissible? Agreement on the inadmissibility of a specific legal fact to be proven by evidence whereby the legal text allows proof to be carried out? Does this agreement include all evidentiary evidence at any time; That is, whether it occurred before or after the litigation, or does it include specific evidence at a specific time? The extent to which this agreement is considered likely, and the extent of the ability to distinguish it from legal weighting? To answer these questions, this research will be divided into two requirements: the first deals with the meaning of consensual weighting, while the second requirement presents the similarities and differences between the idea of legal weighting and consensual weighting under the title of determining the subjectivity of the two ideas