Evidence in administrative offence proceedings: between admissibility, sufficiency, and conviction

The article presents a comprehensive study of proof in administrative offence proceedings as a key mechanism for establishing legally relevant facts that ensures a balance between public authority and individual rights. The nature of proof is revealed as a multi-level intellectual and legal activity that encompasses not only procedural actions but also evaluative judgments based on the standards of admissibility, sufficiency, and conviction. The author substantiates the argument that these three standards are not self-sufficient but operate as interdependent components of an integrated legal and logical system. It is demonstrated that any disruption of their systemic unity results in formalism, subjectivism, or a de facto deprivation of the person’s guarantees of a fair hearing. The paper outlines the current state of legal regulation of proof under the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences, emphasizing the absence of clear definitions of key concepts, criteria for admissibility and sufficiency, and mechanisms for verifying the decision-maker’s conviction. Particular attention is given to practical shortcomings such as automation of decisions, formulaic use of evidence, and disregard for alternative versions of events. A comparative legal analysis is provided of the approaches to proof in Germany, France, the United States, and Poland, where normative models and epistemological foundations of the evidentiary process are more precisely articulated. As a result, the article proposes a three-tier model of proof in administrative offence proceedings, involving the sequential application of the standards of admissibility, sufficiency, and conviction, complemented by requirements for their justification and procedural review. The necessity is argued for codifying relevant provisions, developing methodological recommendations for practitioners, and introducing a unified evidentiary framework in public administration. The article formulates a doctrinal approach to proof as a mechanism for attaining legal truth in administrative proceedings.

 

proof, administrative offence, admissibility of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, conviction, public jurisdiction, administrative proceedings, legal truth.