جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "عدم پذیرش" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

Plea as a procedural application is accepted for more than one hundred years in our legal system, notably by the Law of Civil Procedure 1911 and since that time this concept used in our legal writings as that term without any changes. However, the meaning our example of Plea of Procedure have not ever been analyzed our revised and so we cannot find the main difference of Plea from other Defense Means such as substantial defense or non-acceptation means. We believe that historical background of Plea in French legal system which was categorized generally all means of defense as Plea have been imported to our legal system without changes but Plea in French legal system recently have been distinguished from other means of defense very strictly. In our legal system the new law of civil procedure 2000 maintained that old French tradition and have some influences of Islamic Law as well.Plea as a procedural application is accepted for more than one hundred years in our legal system, notably by the Law of Civil Procedure 1911 and since that time this concept used in our legal writings as that term without any changes. However, the meaning our example of Plea of Procedure have not ever been analyzed our revised and so we cannot find the main difference of Plea from other Defense Means such as substantial defense or non-acceptation means. We believe that historical background of Plea in French legal system which was categorized generally all means of defense as Plea have been imported to our legal system without changes but Plea in French legal system recently have been distinguished from other means of defense very strictly.

As a basic rule of the procedure It is argued that the procedural plea, If accepted has no effect on definitive rejection of the claim of the other party. Article 84 of the Civil Procedure Law by its eleven sectios, various titles of procedural pleas have been enumerated. Not only, the number of procedural pleas are not limited only to the sections mentioned in that article, but also all of them have no same nature. Some should be considered as substantial defenses as a result of the effect of rejecting the claim after a substantive proceeding. Another category of them, have the same effect but without a substantive review. The rules of this category could not be compared to the rules of procedural pleas or substantial defenses, because they are different. They are, according to their effect, in rejecting the claim, are substantial defense, and they are similar to the procedural pleas of inadmissibility in preventing entry into a substantive review. In this paper, we conclude that the creation of a third category along with the two others will provide a great deal in order to properly understand the rules of procedure and the effects of defenses and it would be useful for theory and practice of procedure.

In civil procedure code enacted in 1931, the legislator, was not accepted the witness of sanguinity or causal relationship of the third degree from the second floor. With approval of civil procedure code enacted in 2000, the legislator is silent about witness of relatives. Therefore, the question arises as to whether, despite the silence of the civil procedure code enacted in 2000, as well as relatives with one of the parties, prevented the acceptance of the witness or not. It seems, due to intentional silence of legislator in the new code of civil procedure, it shall be sentenced to a change of the legislator's idea and acceptance of the relatives' witness. However, the legislator in Article 154 of the criminal procedure code enacted in 1999 (Article 209 of the new code of criminal procedure), the judge shall be to question about the degree of sanguinity or causal relationship between witness and informed with the litigants. The sentence of criminal procedure code raises this question that if the witness of relatives in Iran's legal system is acceptable, what's the point of the question of the parties with respect to existence or nonexistence of the relationship. And if the lack of relationship, in the witness is required, why not raised under the terms of witness?

La Fin De Non-Recevoir in the Law of Iran and France Abdollah Shams (Professor of Law, Shahid Beheshti University)Mostafa kordzangene(Ph.D Candidate of  Law, Shahid Beheshti University )Abstract  “La fin de non –recevoir” is an institution that has been predicted as a defense against a litigant in the law of Iran and France. This institution works as a the guarantee for not having the right of litigation or the lack of action, which is addressed in details in France’s civil procedure. However, there are only a few regulations about this institution in Iran’s civil procedure. But recognizing the La fin de non-recevoir as an instrument that can be effective in settling the problems based on its principles and contents, shows that most of the lawsuits and cases are not enforceable and must be ended by a conclusive decision at the beginning. Therefore the recognition of this institution in France dynamic legal system and also comparative analysis of Iran’s legal system in this matter and consideration of both countries’ legal procedure have been studied in this article.