جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « retrial » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

With the approval of the Criminal Procedure Law of 2013, the judicial authorities confronted difficulties in interpreting and applying this law, and note of Article 478 of this law, which concerns the issue of suspending some criminal judgments upon a request for re-trial. As a result, various panels of the Supreme Court, after the approval of this law, adopted different opinions on the implementation of this note. Some of these branches followed the absolute implementation of the note and without analyzing the merits of the case, they proceeded to issue an order to suspend the enforcement of the judgment. In contrast, other branches made their judgments to apply or not to apply the note according to the analysis of the merits of the case.Following the appearance of this duality and the issuance of divergent verdicts, the General Board of the country's Supreme Court, proceeded to issue the unificaition judgment 742; a decision that, from the perspective of some jurists, has pursued an attitude and strategy different from the legislator's objective and has even led to the disuse of the aforementioned note.Studying and criticizing this decision of the Supreme Court as a unified judicial precedent is meaningful in several ways; first, in terms of investigating the scope of the authorities of the Supreme Court , and second, in terms of analyzing the decision under discussion in terms of its practical impact on the process of cases. In light of the sensitivity of the subject, the criticism of this decision can be effective by pointing out some deficiencies not only in the context of its subject but in general in the process of issuing Supreme Court decisions as a unified judicial precedent and the need to establish a framework for legal interpretation and the direction of judicial policy.

The Code of Civil Procedure has stated the waiver of the right of appeal (Article 333) and the waiver of the right of Appeal to the Supreme Court (paragraph 4 of Article 369), but has remained silent on the possibility of dismissal of  the protest and third party objection. The necessity, form and nature of the agreement on the dismissal of the right to appeal as well as the time and scope of the dismissal of the appeal are among the issues that need to be analyzed and examined. The investigation of the case shows that the right to protest and retrial should also be considered dismissible, unless the defendant requests a retrial on the basis of fraud or forgery of the document which the judgment is based.. However, the waiver of the right of third party to object is not acceptable, because it entails the abolition of the fundamental right to sue. Dismissal of the complaint, except in the protest, must be agreed upon by the parties and in any case in writing, and it is not necessary that the agreement be in the form of a civil contract.

Proceedings of retrial in criminal and civil cases are different, it means that in criminal matters only the convicted person, the prosecutor executing the sentence and the Attorney General of the country have the right to request the retrial proceedings in civil matters according to articles 426 to 441 of the Iranian Civil Procedure Law; First of all, the reasons for requesting re-trail are the reasons listed in Article 426. Secondly, according to Article 441, no one except the plantiffe and their successor can request a retrial. Thirdly, the request is limited by the deadline. Fourthly, unlike in criminal matters where the request is submitted to the court and the district court prescribes a retrial, in legal matters the retrial petition is submitted to the court that issued the final judgment and the court that issues an acceptance order and retail the proceedings. The legislator of Egypt has also recognized the retrial of proceedings in criminal matters in articles 441 to 457 of the Egyptian Criminal Procedure Law and considers the purpose of the retrial of proceedings in criminal matters to prevent the judge or the court from causing losses to the accused due to a mistake in issuing a sentence. Therefore, the request for retrial by the public prosecutor's office is requested by the convicted person and in the case of the death of the convicted person by the wife or one of the relatives of the deceased, the retrial in civil matters is considered by the Egyptian legislator from articles 241 to 247 of the civil procedure law, which is often with the prescribed directions

Considering Article 18 of the Law on Establishment of Public Courts and Revolution and Article 477 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the legislator has planned an extraordinary method called resumption of proceedings through the head of the judiciary. Although this method can have advantages in terms of preventing the survival and implementation of incorrect and illegal decisions and verdicts, it faces many ambiguities and criticisms. The principles governing the proceedings in Iran, such as the principle of correspondence and the two-stage principle of substantive proceedings, remain intact in this procedure, the rule of the validity of the adjudicated case upon or “ res judicata” and the inherent difference between the ruling and the order and several ambiguities remain open in this regard.In addition, the analysis and review of the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court and its relationship with the Lower courts and the head of the judiciary can be considered in explaining the criticisms received, which should be reviewed in this type of retrial. This article, with emphasis on judicial procedure, examines and criticizes the retrial of Article 477 of the Civil Procedure Code from the perspective of the principles of civil procedure and presents the necessary solutions for the legal system of our country.

The principle of the prohibition of double punishment is one of the accepted principles of criminal law, according to which every crime should only be punished once. This rule is accepted by Islam and it is imperative to abide. In the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution, this rule has not been accepted if the original punishment was not religious; however, the Islamic Penal Code, adopted in 1392, only accepts this rule in non-legal sanctions. The result of this approach is that the offender, in addition to the primary punishment, must tolerate the religious punishment that is not compatible with the rational principles and the spirit that governs the Islamic law. In this research, by examining the bases of Guardian Council's views on this issue, the fatawa of contemporary imitation and analysis of relevant researches, the Guardian Council's approach to non-acceptance of this rule has been criticized in the sanctity of Shari'ah and, moreover, Adoption of this rule in all punishments has been based on the principle of non-refoulement to the judiciary. Since the famous jurisprudents believe that if the presence of a judge in a lack of authority is in vain and without authority, the reference to him is permissible and his vote is valid, and since in the criminal matters the presence of the offender in the court of law and his punishment are usually It is beyond his discretion that he should consider the verdict of the judge concerned and avoid double punishment for the offender.

When the rights of the defendant are violated or denied. The plaintiff, in order to oblige the defendant to return the right or to accept it, resorts to a lawsuit that ethics requires that the defendant's right not be violated as a result of any unsupported lawsuit. The legislator, in order to provide legal and moral protection and to protect the rights of the defendant, and in case the plaintiff is sentenced to injustice, can receive damages resulting from the plaintiff's lawsuit or execution of the sentence. For this purpose, it has been predicted to obtain security. The purpose of this article is to examine the cases of obtaining security from the plaintiff in civil lawsuits. In this article, it has been prepared and compiled using descriptive-analytical method using library methods and using library resources. The findings indicate that; The legislature has proposed an establishment in the Code of Civil Procedure so that the defendant can seize the equivalent of the damages from the property of the plaintiff. This establishment can be described as obtaining security. In addition, these findings of the research show that the possibility of obtaining security from the applicant requires taking the conditions set by the legislator. The security institution is intended for cases in which in the future, due to a lawsuit filed by the defendant, the defendant will not be deprived of his right, and moral teachings emphasize the legislator's protection of the defendant in similar cases. The defendant in the lawsuit, in cases such as fictitious lawsuits and lawsuits of foreign nationals, and in the reviewing authorities of the lawsuit, including the first instance, appeal, appeal, third party objection and retrial, will be obtained from the defendant at the defendant's request. The security institution is intended for cases in which in the future, due to a lawsuit filed by the defendant, the defendant will not be deprived of his right, and moral teachings emphasize the legislator's protection of the defendant in similar cases. The defendant in the lawsuit, in cases such as fictitious lawsuits and lawsuits of foreign nationals, and in the reviewing authorities of the lawsuit, including the first instance, appeal, appeal, third party objection and retrial, will be obtained from the defendant at the defendant's request.

The aim of trial in contentious affairs is to remove action and ending dispute between litigants. The action usually ends by a competent court’s final decision; but it is not finished, if the contradictory judgments have been held about the same subject matter, because one or both of them are definitely unjust. In order to resolve this inconsistency, Iranian Code of Civil Procedure provided the retrial (whenever the opposing Judgements are issued by the same court) and appeal (when the inconsistent judgements are considered by the same or different courts). By examining the conditions of each of these two methods, it appears that the territory of dissolving contrary judgments by appeal is wider than by retrial. Given that each of these methods have a specific base and foundation; it should not be possible to utilize them on the same cause. Even if there is contradiction between two decisions of the same court, the appeal can remove inconsistency. Therefore, the feasibility of retrial is unnecessary and for this reason, it is necessary to amend article 426 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The resumption of trial or retrial is one of the extraordinary ways in which a person or persons, if there are legitimate grounds, requests from lower court or the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, that review yourself and, if necessary, deviate from it's previous decision. Therefore, a retrial (if the plaintiff's appeal is accepted) is considered a retroactive action and is a way to return to the same court that ruled and in order to deviate from the judgment previously issued by that court and a claim for retrial. It is a mistake. Therefore, as is clear from the concept of retrial, this method of objection to judgments is not in itself a retroactive approach, but is a retroactive approach if accepted by the trial court. So that if the applicant does not consider the reasons for the retrial is not sufficint and does not consider it to be subject to any of the aspects of the retrial, he will objectively confirm the sentence and will not deviate from it. Therefore, the deviant nature of that branch is based on the acceptance of the request and the violation of the sentence, not just the request for retrial. Retrial is possible only in accordance with court judgements and it will not be conceivable regarding the decisions issued by the courts. Because, in principle, the issued orders, such as the decision to cancel the petition, the reject the application and the reject the lawsuit, are not valid and it is possible to litigation again.

Basically societies have norms and values ​which are collected in a set called the statute law، andnaturallyviolatethevalues​​ofcriminal law، make the crime and commit، deservesanctionspredicted forviolation oftheact. According to a simple thought، any action that harms or violates the values ​​and violate it should be punished only once; This idea is expressed in the form of the rule prohibiting the re-trial. Review of Iranian penal code indicates that the rule banning punished again (considering previous penalties) in different periods، are always ups and downs faced، and unit approach and the same before and after the revolution to this rule is not observed. So that legislators in Iran before the revolution، the rule explicitly accepted. But the rules after the revolution we are witnessing. Certainly the first principle، the Iranian laws in 1361 and 1370 has been canceled and then restore again in 1392. The authors in this paper are intended stating the meaning of this rule and distinguish it from similar concepts and terms، in particular، the basis for legal work in after the revolution roots and on the issue whether a legislative act in the removal of this rule corresponds to the state of jurisprudence، create and revive it again in the new Penal Code، based on the principles of jurisprudence.

Retrial like other ordinary and exceptional ways of protest to award is a way which can have different impacts on the impugned final judgment, its pro_ proceedings and both parties based on its situations and legal act. One of these impacts is the effect of retrial on the process of the enforcement of award and can stay it. In other words the execution would be stopped through retrial. Stopping the execution of final judgment is subject to conditions such as transition from the first steps of proceeding in retrial and making an order to acceptance of retrial request. After issuing the acceptance of retrial, the impugned final judgment would be affected in the process of execution based on its being a financial or non-financial case. In case of non-financial affairs, the execution of award is stopped and for financial cases, the execution of award would be in process in case all the suitable security is paid by the judgment creditor in order to compensate the probable financial losses. If the financial compensation is not affordable at the discretion of the court or in case the winning Party is not able to pay the suitable security, the financial case would also be stopped.