جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "illegal possession" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

Rivers, as the vital arteries of the earth, are among the national property and God-given wealth, and factors such as unprincipled handing over of the bed and seizing their privacy and changing their use have seriously threatened the environment's ecosystem. Currently, in the normal laws, exploitation of the river beds is prescribed in the form of temporary cultivation in the form of a lease contract, and the establishment of encroachment and any encroachment on these lands is allowed with the permission of the Ministry of Energy. The transfer of the ownership of riverbed benefits to private individuals without adequate and effective supervision by relevant organizations has become the source of many problems and crimes that cannot be ignored. The main question in this article is what is the position of the river bed in the property rights system and in what legal form is its transfer prescribed so that its criminal effects can be analyzed and studied. By studying the library resources and examining the nature of rivers in the property rights system, this research has reached the conclusion that the exploitation of river beds as national property should be done exceptionally and with the permission of the government, without transferring its benefits under a lease contract.

The method and type of cession of public land by the legislator has created illegal possession of the public wealth. It is required to investigate the existing condition and the causes of occurrence of these possessions in legislative criminal policy and formulate policies to reduce these abnormal behaviors. The present study is a descriptive-analytic design via the evaluation of the relevant rules and library studies and it examines the basics of the possession of public land and evaluation of the performance of the legislator in Iran. The studies show the lack of comprehensive, purposeful, effective policies by the legislator in this field. Based on the great power of the legislator in cession of public land and the confusion of the rules in this regard, general policies of the government in land field and its emphasis on the necessity of legislation in the framework of Spatial planning can reduce the illegal possessions of public land.

Pathology of illegal possession offence shows that there are some challenges. serious different opinions about whether this crime is conditional on the element of ownership or possession of the victim; Ambiguity in the existence of the element of property belonging to another despite the common ownership of the perpetrator; Illegal element presence or absence in the conduct arising from the contract or the execution of right; Disproportionate and vague legal penalties, uncertainty in the implementation of lapse of time are most important shortcomings. Purpose of the research with Collecting and studying data from library sources and judicial decisions and descriptive-analytical method is presenting ideas and reasonable measures based on the balanced protection of private property and public order. The research findings prove that this crime can be committed with elements of ownership or previous possession and with illegal possession of common property by each partner. Presence of illegal element in possession arising from the contract or the execution of right; Necessity to enact proportionate and several punishments are other research findings.

Withdrawal from ignoring the property, which means cancelling the legal action performed based on the principle of freedom and the governance of the human will, is the right of every owner, and the religious legislator has recognized it with conditions. Because of exercising this right, the ownership of the ignored property will be again for its first owner. The main purpose of this paper is to answer what are the effects and rulings of ignoring the property. It is an answer that satisfies the society's expectations from Islamic jurisprudence for such disputes by resolving the disputes between the ignorer and the receiver of the property. Therefore, to achieve this goal, the paper was conducted in a descriptive-analytical method. The finding of this study based on the arguments is that it is permissible only in some of its forms to withdraw from ignoring the property as a unilateral legal act such as a contractual will. That is, this unilateral act is permissible and reversible only when no one has taken possession of the ignored property, but in case of seizure or possession by others, there will be no possibility of withdrawal of the first owner. The finding of this study is to solve some social conflicts when there is a difference between the first owner and the recipient of the property during the conflict of interests. . Another result is the clarification of the ruling on property ownership, which has been left undecided due to withdrawal from ignoring and has been removed from the economic cycle of the society.

In the unanimous decision No. 798 of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court, the employees of private banks, including public service agents, are considered and their seizure of the bank's property and funds is considered illegal. While this criminal behavior can be attributed only to those who have the description and characteristics provided in Article 598 of the 1375 (1996) Islamic Penal Code. Because, the description of "public service agents" mentioned in the mentioned article and other articles of the criminal law, only includes the agents mentioned in the "Law on Trial and Punishment of Public Service Officers approved in 1315 (1936)". The repeal of this law has no effect on changing the concept and examples of this group of employees. Undoubtedly, the legislator has paid attention to that law in all legal articles before 1394 (2015) and has not considered any other concept or example until this date. The meaning and examples of this phrase are clear and there is no ambiguity in it and there is no way that the court, in the position of providing a correct interpretation of the law, can issue a unanimous decision on it. The law is silent about the employees of private banks and the employees of the private sector in general, and based on the principle of legality of crime and punishment, in the silence of the law, there is no place for the Supreme Court to provide an interpretation, but the legislature must assign a task on such an issue. In such cases, the court must base its decision on a verdict of innocence for a unanimous vote to provide a basis for substantive legislation. Therefore, it is not possible to interpret and infer from the phrase "public service agents" a concept and example other than those mentioned in Law 1315 (1936).

Illegal possession, nuisance and obstruction of right-of-way, also known in Iran jurisdiction as possession actions or triple actions, are among those lawsuits that have brought many cases to Iran courts. Legislative support for a criminal prosecution for these lawsuits on the one hand and the advantages of proceeding without due process and out of court litigation on the other hand encourages individuals to file such lawsuits. The basis of the law's support for these lawsuits is the maintenance of social order, and the requirements for recognizing these claims are Articles 159 to 160 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  In this article, the elements and criteria for identifying these cases and their common rules are analyzed and criticized within the context of a judgment rendered by one of the Branches of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Revolutionary Tribunal of Tehran, which illustrates how the judiciary inferred the status of each casee.

For improving and progressing the statutes, and promoting the security of the property in the society and prohibiting an illegal possession, this paper examines the theories of legitimizing the tender of the seized vehicles by the security forces according to the intellectual arguments and jurisprudential and legal certainties. Similarly, in this regard, punishment of custody of something and the different legal dimensions of avoiding to return by the owner are examined. In this paper, the author restudies the rule of abandonment and the other causes of removing the ownership in the Islamic jurisprudence; and by analyzing the legislator`s intention in the very legislating the penalty of custody, and the theory of paying the fine for the road traffic offences, the author concludes that argumentation of the legal causes in order to remove the ownership and legitimacy of tendering is incomplete according to the legal and jurisprudential analysis. The author also believes that in some presumptions, the requirements of article 11 proceeding law of road traffic offences are contrary to the certain legal principles and jurisprudential rules; because, on one hand, these requirements make the legal effect of the article 6 of the mentioned law - being temporary of custody judgment - practically invalid, and prevent the owner to return to the vehicle, and on the other hand, they are contrary to the Islamic Shariat`s intensions based on the guaranty of social justice, and impact on the issue of ownership.