Private Law
Majid Azizyani
Abstract
Proof of ownership litigation in the various stages of property registration, there are rules about how to register such property, which must be taken into account, especially in real estate, which is subject to legal requirements and formalities and such a request cannot be accepted absolutely in all ...
Read More
Proof of ownership litigation in the various stages of property registration, there are rules about how to register such property, which must be taken into account, especially in real estate, which is subject to legal requirements and formalities and such a request cannot be accepted absolutely in all immovable property with a single shape and quality. Action for ownership Proof is one of civil action that there are many differences of verdicts about accepting or rejecting it in legal authorities ,so that some of courts has accepted action for ownership Proof based on precedent No. 569 dated Dec.31,1991 of General Board of Supreme Court of Iran and believe that Legal obligation of owner to demand for their self-property registration in part which Public registration of real estate is advertised , not prevented that courts of justice adjudicate about disputes over property ownership and in some of courts avoid from such action by virtue of article 22,46,47 and 48 of Real Property Law and contents of precedent No. 672 dated Dec.21,2004 of General Board of Supreme Court of Iran and also contents law of course to pursue land without official deed. In present article , we review proof of ownership is basically devoid of description of the claim and opposition to the principle or appearance and it is merely a form of litigation that the courts are not the reference of the preparation of the case. The authority to declare ownership of immovable property is the registration authorities.
judgmental procedure
Amirhossein Alizadeh; Jamshid Zargari
Abstract
There is no clear solution, in civil justice system and judicial procedure of Iran, how to resolve the dispute among courts regarding to the recognition of full connection among related actions. The question is that which judicial authority should recognize the full connection? And in the event of a ...
Read More
There is no clear solution, in civil justice system and judicial procedure of Iran, how to resolve the dispute among courts regarding to the recognition of full connection among related actions. The question is that which judicial authority should recognize the full connection? And in the event of a dispute on the recognition of the full connection between the two courts, whether in same jurisdiction or in two different jurisdictions or different degrees, how to resolve it? In the current legal order, is there a judicial authority to resolve the dispute? The necessity of answering this question is important because lack of clear and precise rules in this matter causes delays in judicial proceedings, conflicting verdicts, inadequate judgments, and a loss of public confidence in the judiciary. In this article, in a descriptive-analytical manner and with library resources, in addition to analyzing ambiguous cases, suggestions and solutions to silent cases under internal regulations, judicial procedure and comparative law are presented. The result shows that according to the current legal order, despite recognizing the full connection by one branch of the court and sending case to another branch of that court, this branch of the court has obligation to hear related actions for preventing the cessation of the judicial proceedings. However, it is contrary to the principle of judicial independence and imposing the substantive opinion of one branch of the court on another branch of that court. Therefore, it is suggested that in future amendments to Civil Procedure Law, disputes among courts in recognizing full connection in two courts with same jurisdiction, the head of the jurisdiction is in charge and if two courts are in two different jurisdictions or being between supreme court and civil court, the dispute resolution shall be conducted under rules settlement of jurisdictional disputes.
Family Law
Touba Shakeri; Zahra Babazadeh
Abstract
The sexual abuse of the wife by the husband is not explicitly recognized in the Iranian legal system. However, in light of some of the provisions in the family law, one can find the grounds to consider this issue. Due to the legislator's silence in defining conjugal obedience, separating general and ...
Read More
The sexual abuse of the wife by the husband is not explicitly recognized in the Iranian legal system. However, in light of some of the provisions in the family law, one can find the grounds to consider this issue. Due to the legislator's silence in defining conjugal obedience, separating general and specific obedience and determining the limits and scope of each, identification and recognition of the sexual rights of couples in family lawsuits face challenges. This study answers the questions that, given the sexual abuse by the husband, what legislative mechanism is provided to support the wife in the Iranian legal system and how family court judges interpret these laws. This paper, using a qualitative approach and case study methodology, after reviewing jurisprudential texts and reviewing legal laws investigates the judicial procedure of family courts in Tehran province in issuing rulings requiring obedience or judicial divorce due to sexual harassment of the wife by analyzing the content of cases, interviewing judges and women applicants of divorce. Findings show that judges’ interpretations of the instances of sexual misconduct are varied and verification of the wife's sexual hardship, in addition to the difficulty of proof, lacks clear criteria and is based on judges' personal interpretations of the scope of conjugal obedience. Therefore, there seems to be a need to include the conventional sexual rights of couples in the family laws and establish a unified procedure in issuing a sentence of non-obligation to obey and verification of the wife's hardship in cases of sexual abuse by the husband.
Public Law
zahra Bidar; ebrahim abdipour
Abstract
The general principles and rules of public economic law indicate how the government intervenes in the economy and its evolution towards redefining the regulatory role of the government. Studying the indicators of judicial supervision in the field of economic regulation of the government requires reviewing ...
Read More
The general principles and rules of public economic law indicate how the government intervenes in the economy and its evolution towards redefining the regulatory role of the government. Studying the indicators of judicial supervision in the field of economic regulation of the government requires reviewing the procedure of the General Assembly of the Court of Administrative Justice and extracting the mentioned principles. The purpose of this descriptive-analytical study is to reach the conclusion that the principles accepted by the Court of Administrative Justice in this area and how they are crystallized in the practice of this institution. The findings of this study show that the principle of protection of private property, the principle of freedom of trade and industry, the principle of equality, the principle of competition and the principle of proportionality are among the principles that are explicitly and implicitly documented based on their legal principles in Iranian law. The annulment of government regulations by the General Assembly of the Court of Administrative Justice falls within the scope of public economic law.
Private Law
Amirhosseyn Alizadeh; Mohammadbaqer Parsapoor
Abstract
The process of acquisition of land in English and Iranian law takes place under a specific procedure that may be questioned for validity. One type of the examining of objection is judicial review, which is high supervisory, will be applied in such manner that all actions will be in accordance with the ...
Read More
The process of acquisition of land in English and Iranian law takes place under a specific procedure that may be questioned for validity. One type of the examining of objection is judicial review, which is high supervisory, will be applied in such manner that all actions will be in accordance with the elements that are necessary for acquisition. The source of the judicial review is different between English jurisprudence, so three views have been put forward on the subject that compilation of ultra vires doctrine with common law, has excelled. But in Iran, despite judicial precedent effort, the law-based view remains dominant. The English judicial precedent has also taken appropriate steps in the development of this theory in the law of acquisition of land and has outlined various ways in motives of judicial review; substantive ultra vires and procedural ultra vires, infringement human rights, legitimate expectation, natural justice, proportionality, unreasonableness. However, the English judicial precedent has made some exceptions as general policies of the country. The major of decisions in judicial review in acquisition of land, are in the form of quash. However, there are some cases in the English judicial precedent that have been cited another decision.
Private Law
Amirhosseyn Alizadeh; Mohammadbagher Parsapour
Abstract
In order to implement public projects which are carried out by the executive systems, apart from the ownership, the owners of the property in these projects' realm may be affected by the implementation of public projects. The question is whether the executive system can be held liable for such damages? ...
Read More
In order to implement public projects which are carried out by the executive systems, apart from the ownership, the owners of the property in these projects' realm may be affected by the implementation of public projects. The question is whether the executive system can be held liable for such damages? This is one of the most important issues in many countries, which has sometimes been overlooked. In the present article, this issue has been studied in an analytical and comparative manner in the Iranian judicial procedure. In general, British law's spoken about three types of damages: damages resulting from the ownership of a part of the property; damages resulting from the type of work and exploitation of the project and damages resulting from the deprivation (disturbance) of rights. Determining the compensation in the first case is done on the base of three rules of concurrent value or value reduction and the rule of before and after, and in the second case is based on the method of payment of damages in the scope of civil liability and in the third case, is based on the evaluation of relocation costs or completion of business activities. Iranian law and judicial precedent have no corresponding rules regarding the damages of the first and second types, and the judicial procedure does not provide a clear criterion for damages of the third type. In some cases, determining the compensation is subject to the agreement of the parties or to the extent of definite damages. However, it seems that in Iranian law, based on accepted rules and principles, it's possible to provide acceptable justification for the application of rules in British law.
Private Law
mohamadreza bagheri; Jafar Jamali; mahmud khdeman
Abstract
Law and justice are closely linked, and decisions that do not conform to justice Following the currency crises of 1993, 2002, 2012 and the recent foreign exchange crisis and the non-fulfillment of currency obligations in due time, the claim for a delay in payment of foreign currency, is one of the most ...
Read More
Law and justice are closely linked, and decisions that do not conform to justice Following the currency crises of 1993, 2002, 2012 and the recent foreign exchange crisis and the non-fulfillment of currency obligations in due time, the claim for a delay in payment of foreign currency, is one of the most complex and prevalent claims nowadays. The judicial precedent in this regard is not much clear. The origin of the dispute, results from the nature of the currency obligations and its non-prevalence essence. One stated comment (as the dominant view) suggests that the common currency mentioned in Article 522 of the Iranian Civil Procedure Code for Public and Civil Revolutionary Courts is limited and dedicated to the domestic currency money and does not include any foreign exchanges. The other opinion would suggest that this lawsuit is after all actionable. The same dispute exists in respect with the private agreement on determining the delay damage of payment obligations (including currency and Rial). By understanding the undeniable role of currency in the economic activities and the need to support foreign investment, it is essential to legally examine and review this claim and its reasons and justifications. It seems that the Article 522 of the mentioned law, which is cited by the courts, seeks to govern the power of the money and doesn’t include the determination of the contractual monetary obligation and the delay damage in payment in its strict sense. Therefor in the light of legal citations and documents which approve the claim of delay damages of payment and its basic philosophy, it is possible to hear these claims and decide upon it.
Private Law
Dr. Seyyed Mostafa mohaghegh damad; khashayar esfandiari far
Abstract
Law and justice are closely linked, and decisions that do not conform to justice and fairness are not willingly executed, leading to resorting to all kinds of deceit to escape from it. The link between law and justice can be observed in many judicial decisions, and one of the manifestations of justice ...
Read More
Law and justice are closely linked, and decisions that do not conform to justice and fairness are not willingly executed, leading to resorting to all kinds of deceit to escape from it. The link between law and justice can be observed in many judicial decisions, and one of the manifestations of justice in judicial decisions is the lawsuit for damages by the plaintiff. Nowadays, in various contracts, especially commercial ones, the pledgee tries to put pressure on the pledger and to ensure that he she fulfills the pledge, sums of money are assigned to the pledge agreement as a consideration. In some cases, the pledgee, for various reasons, such as economic fluctuations or negligence and shortcomings, refuses to perform the contractual obligations (in part or in full), resulting in encountering an enormous amount of contractual loss, which sometimes exceeds the contract value. In this type of litigation, the role of judges and, in fact, the judgments are very strong and some courts consider the "principle of interpretation in the light of the whole contract", "the administration of justice and fairness as a rule" and "the illegality of the condition", deviating from Article 230 of the Civil Code and order payment of the obligation by modifying its amount or removing the above-mentioned condition and holding it in accordance with justice. In the present paper, several instances of judicial opinions are mentioned in this regard and their arguments are analyzed.
Public Law
Abdolmajid Soudmandi
Abstract
"Reasonableness and legality of judicial decisions" is one of the most accepted legal principles governing judicial and quasi-judicial institutions and it can be assumed a result of presumption of innocence and a precondition of justice in judicial settlement of disputes. This rule has always not only ...
Read More
"Reasonableness and legality of judicial decisions" is one of the most accepted legal principles governing judicial and quasi-judicial institutions and it can be assumed a result of presumption of innocence and a precondition of justice in judicial settlement of disputes. This rule has always not only been part of Iran's Acts of procedure, but principle 78 of amendment to the Constitutionalism Constitution and principle 166 of the Islamic Republic of Iran' Constitution also have emphasized on it. Hence, it is obvious that Administrative Justice Court as a judicial institution established by the Islamic Republic of Iran's Constitution is subject to this rule.In this paper, we study the adherence of the General Board of Administrative Justice Court to this rule and discuss, in an analytical way, some cases of violation of the above rule by General Board of Administrative Justice Court in invoking legislative Acts, and it would be seen that this violation is in three forms: "defects in legal documentation and legal arguments", "failure to invoke a specific Act" and "failure to invoke specific articles of Acts". The study also reveals that two major consequences of this violation is "issuing wrong or doubtful decisions" and "adoption of regulations similar to previous revoked regulations". Hence, given that the General Board of Administrative Justice Court is the unique referee for complaint of regulations and its decisions are not supervised by any other institution, it can rightly be expected that it try harder for precise observance of this rule; in particular, given that the consequences of wrong decisions of it, Contrary to decisions of other judicial bodies, in revocation or not revocation of regulations is not confined to the complainant but can affect a large group of people.
Criminal Law
Ali Azizi; Mohammad Farajiha
Abstract
AbstractAfter various approaches dealing with the crimes, some countries in common law legal system have adopted a therapeutic-judicial approach and established courts called "problem-Solving courts". The first model of these courts was Miami-Dade County Drug Treatment Court in 1989 which with a therapeutic-judicial ...
Read More
AbstractAfter various approaches dealing with the crimes, some countries in common law legal system have adopted a therapeutic-judicial approach and established courts called "problem-Solving courts". The first model of these courts was Miami-Dade County Drug Treatment Court in 1989 which with a therapeutic-judicial approach was trying to address the offenders' underlying problems with addiction or substance abuse issues. The idea of adopting this model in the criminal justice and health care systems led to planning and implementing a pilot project in Iran named "Iranian Drug Treatment Court" jointly by the Judiciary and the State Welfare Organization in 2017. This article with emphasis on Tehran Drug Treatment Court seeks to evaluate and analyze the process of "planning" and "implementing" of this model in Iran by using a "descriptive-analytical" method and reviewing all documents written for this project as well as other related regulations. The results of the research show that the common law model of drug treatment courts has not been correctly adopted, and problem solving principles and their legal capacities in Iran have been somehow neglected. Meanwhile, the project has not been completely implemented in accordance with the criteria and indicators specified in its relevant documents.
