Private Law
Mahdi Hasanzadeh
Abstract
The Code of Civil Procedure does not specify whether a verdict challenged by a third party is final or whether a non-final verdict can be challenged by a third party. In this regard, different and reciprocal views and analyzes are presented. The statement of Article 422 of the Code of Civil Procedure ...
Read More
The Code of Civil Procedure does not specify whether a verdict challenged by a third party is final or whether a non-final verdict can be challenged by a third party. In this regard, different and reciprocal views and analyzes are presented. The statement of Article 422 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the objection of a third party, before the execution of the sentence and after it, is vague and debatable and has several problems. Examining the issue shows that considering various aspects, it is preferable not to consider the non-final verdict as objectionable to a third party and to consider the third party objection as specific to the final judgment. Article 422 of the Code of Civil Procedure should also be taken to mean that if a long period of time has elapsed since the execution of the sentence, in such a way as to indicate that the third party, if he had a right, waived it, after that, the third party objection will not be accepted unless it proves otherwise.
Public Law
Morteza Rostami; Mohammad Rostami
Abstract
In Iran's legal system, according to Article 166 of the Labour act (enacted 1990), the verdicts of labour dispute resolution authorities must be implemented in the Judiciary by the Civil Judgments Enforcement Unit. Although the general process of enforcing these verdicts is set out in acts, including ...
Read More
In Iran's legal system, according to Article 166 of the Labour act (enacted 1990), the verdicts of labour dispute resolution authorities must be implemented in the Judiciary by the Civil Judgments Enforcement Unit. Although the general process of enforcing these verdicts is set out in acts, including the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act (enacted 1977) and the Enforcement of Financial Sentences Act (enacted 2015), the implementation of the verdicts of these authorities is sometimes accompanied by ambiguities and challenges; so those workers face difficulties in achieving their rights. The present article examines these ambiguities and challenges on the basis of descriptive and analytical methods. Its findings indicate the ambiguities in the process of implementing the most important rulings of labour dispute resolution authorities, including rulings on financial condemnations (including labourers' premiums and their salaries and benefits) and verdicts on non-financial condemnations (including verdicts to return to work) has led to the emergence of various procedures in the enforcement units of civil judgments of the judiciary. In addition, the implementation of these verdicts in practice is associated with several challenges, some of which are: Ambiguity in verdicts, the employer's financial inability (whether insolvency or bankruptcy), the employer's refusal to implement the verdict and the Social Security Organization's refusal to implement the verdicts on premium.
