Private Law
Badie fathi; Khayrollah Hormozi
Abstract
The indivisibility of claims in the civil procedure of Iran and FranceAbstract The indivisibility of claims is different from the indivisibility of one claim and the indivisibility of judgments. In the Civil Procedure Code of Iran the term indivisibility of claims (Articles 104, 298) and the indivisibility ...
Read More
The indivisibility of claims in the civil procedure of Iran and FranceAbstract The indivisibility of claims is different from the indivisibility of one claim and the indivisibility of judgments. In the Civil Procedure Code of Iran the term indivisibility of claims (Articles 104, 298) and the indivisibility and inseparability of judgments (Articles 308, 359, 404, 425) have appeared, but the term indivisibility of claims has not come.inseparability of claims does not cause "dependency of procedure" but necessarily creates "unity of procedure" between two or more lawsuits. Therefore, indivisible claims are processed as an inseparable "whole".It seems that the definition mentioned about complete connection in Article 141 of the Civil Procedure Law of Iran is not only the definition of connection, but it is the definition of the highest level of indivisibility of claims.However, for the indivisibility of claims, complete connection is not the only criterion and it has other criteria as well. Indivisibility in the proceedings also creates the effects of the unity of the procedure. For example, when the indivisibility of claims is realized, the expansion of jurisdiction occurs, and also the events of proceedings in one cause an effect on the other, and a appeal against one decision causes a appeal against another decision.Key words: indivisibility, inseparability, complete connection, dependence of procedure, unity of procedure.
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.
Hasan Mohseni
Abstract
An action that one of the litigants proceeds against another litigant during a proceeding is related action. If this action has perfect relation by that action which is in course of proceeding, proper administration of justice and preventing to issuing paradoxical judgments requires to ruling all of ...
Read More
An action that one of the litigants proceeds against another litigant during a proceeding is related action. If this action has perfect relation by that action which is in course of proceeding, proper administration of justice and preventing to issuing paradoxical judgments requires to ruling all of them in one proceeding as one case. In these two cases: “annulling the title of defendant in half of portion” and “demanding remuneration for total portion” we can see that Iranian procedural laws cannot suggest any reliable solution for solving the paradox between their final judgments. Therefore, how we can collect these actions at pleading stage, in during the proceeding and in using the way of attack against judgments (reviewing stage) and even if in execution of judgments and finding a solution in Civil Enforcement Law is the main subject of this article.
