In law, certain situations present the litigant with a major difficulty: proving a fact that is so complex, so remote or so elusive that proving it becomes a real headache, a situation of probatio diabolica. This is what lawyers call the probatio diabolicaor 'devil's evidence'. Far from being a mere theoretical curiosity, this concept has very concrete practical implications, capable of turning the outcome of a trial on its head. Faced with evidence that is difficult or impossible to provide, the law has had to devise solutions to avoid denial of justice, the best known being reversal of the burden of proof. Understanding this mechanism and its applications is essential for anyone involved in a dispute where evidence is at the heart of the debate. If you are faced with a complex legal situation, it is strongly recommended that you call on the services of a lawyer with expertise in this area.
What is probatio diabolica? Definition and principle of the reversal of the burden of proof
La probatio diabolica refers to proof that is impossible or extremely difficult to provide. The textbook case is the proof of a negative fact, i.e. the obligation to demonstrate that something did not happen. This situation, in which it is virtually impossible to provide proof, illustrates the very essence of the problem. How, for example, do you prove that you never gave your consent to an action or that you never received a document? Providing such proof often places the person responsible in an inextricable situation.
The fundamental principle in French law, set out in article 1353 of the Civil Code, is that a person claiming performance of an obligation must prove it. Conversely, a person who claims to be discharged must justify the payment or the event that extinguished his obligation. However, when the strict application of this principle leads to a probatio diabolicaIn this case, the judge may decide to reverse the burden of proof in order to alter the balance between the parties. The effect of this mechanism is to shift the burden to the opposing party. It is no longer up to party A to prove a negative fact, but up to party B to prove the opposite positive fact, a task that is often more feasible and may alter the outcome of the dispute. Case law is careful not to change the rules arbitrarily.
Legal solutions to the problem of impossible proof: beyond reversal
While the reversal of the burden of proof is the most direct response to the probatio diabolicaHowever, the law has developed more subtle mechanisms to avoid such impasses. The most important of these is the use of legal presumptions. A presumption is a consequence that the law or a judge draws from a known fact in order to establish an unknown fact. This use has the effect of modifying the very purpose of proof, a logic that consists of simplifying the judicial debate.
Article 1354 of the Civil Code distinguishes three types of presumption:
- La simple presumption It can be overturned by evidence to the contrary, adduced by any means. This shifts the burden of proof and changes the dynamics of the trial.
- La mixed presumption The law limits the means by which it can be challenged, which has the effect of modifying the conditions of proof.
- La irrebuttable presumption It cannot be overturned. It is assimilated to a legal truth, which profoundly changes the applicable system of proof.
The use of these presumptions makes it possible to modify the very object of the demonstration. Rather than having to prove a difficult negative fact (for example, the absence of consent), the party will have to prove a positive fact that will trigger the legal presumption in his favour. This is a legal technique, validated by doctrine and case law, which makes it possible to circumvent the obstacle of impossible proof without simply reversing the burden of proof.
Probatio diabolica in practice: a multifaceted concept
The concept of diabolical proof is found in many branches of law, each time with specific manifestations and solutions. By analysing these case studies, we can gain a better understanding of the meaning and scope of this legal and logical concept.
A classic case in property law: the challenge of proving ownership
The historical example of probatio diabolica is found in property law, the essence of which is defined in article 544 of the Civil Code as the right to enjoy and dispose of things in the most absolute manner. To prove ownership of a property in a perfect manner, you would have to go back through the chain of successive owners to an original, unassailable method of acquisition (for example, building on a piece of land with no owner). In practice, it would be impossible for an owner to provide such proof, which would take decades or even centuries.
To overcome this difficulty, the law has introduced simplifying mechanisms that modify the evidential requirements. The best known of these is possession. Article 2276 of the Civil Code states that "in the case of movables, possession is equivalent to title". In the case of immovable property, prolonged and peaceful possession enables ownership to be acquired by prescription (or usucapion) after a certain period of time. In this way, the possessor does not have to provide the diabolical proof of the chain of ownership, but only has to prove the existence of possession that meets the legal conditions. The possessor is therefore in a more favourable position than the non-possessing owner. Similarly, for specific obligations such as those defined in article 663 of the Civil Code, recourse to the presumption may be necessary.
Illustration in civil enforcement proceedings: the case of a notice of appeal (Case study)
The existing article illustrated a concrete case of probatio diabolica in the context of a disputed attachment for payment. A creditor, acting on the basis of a notarial deed, sought recovery of a credit claim against Mr X. The main issue in the dispute was the limitation period for the claim, which was two years under the Consumer Code. The creditor therefore had to provide evidence of regular acts interrupting the limitation period.
On appeal, the court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible, considering that it had been lodged out of time. Mr X maintained that he had never received notification of the judgment. The court noted the existence of the acknowledgement of receipt, but acknowledged that the signature was not that of Mr X. It was at this point that the court confronted Mr X with a very difficult piece of evidence. It ruled that it was up to him to prove the absence of a mandate given to the signatory of the acknowledgement of receipt. Providing proof of a negative fact (the non-existence of a mandate) is the exact definition of probatio diabolicaThis is a situation that arises when the burden of proof is placed on the wrong party. Normally, such a situation, as confirmed by the Cour de cassation in its settled case law, should have led the court to reverse the burden of proof. By refusing to do so, this decision created a legal impasse for the appellant.
Emerging applications in banking law: disputing a payment transaction
Banking law is fertile ground for situations where proof is impossible, particularly when disputing payment transactions by credit card or other payment instrument. When a customer denies having authorised a transfer or payment, it is very difficult to prove a negative fact: the absence of their consent. Proof requires a positive element, which is inherently impossible in this case.
Aware of this imbalance, the legislator sought to amend the Monetary and Financial Code to adjust the burden of proof. Article L. 133-23 of this Code states that it is up to the payment service provider (the bank) to provide proof that the transaction has been authenticated, duly recorded and accounted for, and that it has not been affected by a technical fault. The responsibility for proving that the customer has given his consent thus falls on the bank, which is often a large company. This situation can even backfire on the financial institution, which may in turn find itself faced with a probatio diabolica to prove authentication. The starting point of the legal debate then shifts.
In its defence, the bank will often try to prove that the customer who holds the account was 'grossly negligent' in keeping his or her security details (confidential code, etc.). If this negligence is proven, liability may be shifted to the customer. The legal debate then focuses on the assessment of this negligence, an area in which the expertise of a lawyer is often decisive for the holder of the credit.
The specific case of tax law: proving a negative fact to the authorities
In tax matters, taxpayers can also be faced with a diabolical burden of proof when dealing with the tax authorities. Although, in principle, the burden of proof lies with the tax authorities, in practice it is often reversed, changing the balance of power. The taxpayer must then prove that he meets the conditions to benefit from a favourable tax regime or, even more difficult, prove a negative fact to contest the tax.
For example, in the event of an adjustment for fraudulent manoeuvres, the tax authorities must establish the intentional element of the offence. The taxpayer, in his defence, must then indirectly prove his lack of fraudulent intent. Similarly, when it comes to justifying the source of funds or demonstrating that an expense is indeed a deductible expense, the taxpayer must provide positive evidence. Failure to do so may be interpreted by the administrative court or a CAA (Administrative Court of Appeal) as proof of the irregularity, placing the taxpayer in a very delicate evidential situation where proof of the starting point of the funds is essential.
Challenges and prospects for impossible proof
La probatio diabolica is more than just a procedural technique. It touches on the foundations of justice, its very nature, and is constantly renewed by changes in society, particularly technological changes.
Origins and foundations: the legacy of Roman law and the philosophy of evidence
The concept of diabolical evidence has its roots in Roman private law. Roman jurists were already aware that some evidence was impossible to adduce and that the law had to provide solutions to avoid paralysing justice. This thinking, fuelled by an abundance of doctrine over the centuries, led to mechanisms such as the reversal of litigation. This procedural philosophy, which can be found in procedures such as injunctions to pay, is based on the principle that when a party is faced with silence or inertia that puts it in a deadlock, it is right to reverse the initiative of the lawsuit in order to force the other party to defend itself and provide evidence. Reference to this origin provides a better understanding of the meaning of this concept.
The impact of new technologies (blockchain, AI) on diabolical proof
Recent technological developments pose new challenges, but also offer potential solutions to the crisis. probatio diabolicaThis will profoundly change certain types of litigation. Blockchain, for example, by creating unfalsifiable, time-stamped transaction registers, can provide almost irrefutable proof of the existence and timing of a transaction. Such a system could change disputes over the reality of a transaction, considerably simplifying the evidential burden.
Artificial intelligence, for its part, can analyse immense volumes of data to detect anomalies or patterns that would be invisible to the human eye, helping to establish presumptions of fact. Articles in specialist publications, such as a hypothetical European Journal of Digital Law, analyse these changes. However, these technologies also raise new questions: how can we prove that an algorithm is not biased? How can entirely digital evidence be authenticated in the face of increasingly sophisticated forgery techniques? The power of these tools also comes with risks that could alter the social balance and the bond of trust. Electronic evidence and cross-border evidence are areas where the notion of impossible evidence is set to be reinvented.
La probatio diabolica is a fundamental legal concept that illustrates the flexibility of the law when faced with complex situations. If you are faced with a dispute where the burden of proof is a major obstacle, whether in banking law, tax law or enforcement proceedings, the assistance of a lawyer is essential to identify the applicable legal mechanisms and defend your rights effectively. If you have any questions about the burden of proof, or if you find yourself at an evidential impasse, please do not hesitate to contact our law firm for personalised support.
Sources
- Civil Code (articles 544, 663, 1353, 1354, 2276)
- Monetary and Financial Code (article L. 133-23)
- Code of civil enforcement procedures
EN 
FR