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

Despite the existence of many rules regarding liability for causing damage to another in Islamic law and the extensive fiqh doctrine in this regard, it has not developed into an independent branch of legal studies and laws within Islamic law. However, the law of Torts is recognized as an original branch of law in modern Iranian law. Influenced by modern French and Roman-German tort law doctrine, Iranian legal doctrine has established general rules and theories of tort law that can be applied to all aspects of causing harm to others. This approach differs from the approach taken by faqihs (Islamic jurists) towards torts, which form the basis of modern Iranian law. According to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, all rules of Iranian law should be in accordance with Shiite fiqh. Shiite fiqh applies different principles to different torts, and there is no general rule or principle applicable to all torts. Due to the influence and supreme position of fiqh in modern Iranian law, these differing approaches have led to significant misunderstandings in modern Iranian Tort law. It seems that the most suitable and efficient approach for Iranian tort doctrine is to move away from the idea of unified tort law and consider this area of law as diverse, where different general rules are applied based on the nature of the specific tort.In fact, according to modern Iranian doctrine, all torts are based on three elements: Damage, Act of harm to another, and Causation. The doctrine discusses each element independently. Regarding Damage, the doctrine presents different types of damages: physical damage to property, financial and economic losses, personal injury, moral damage, etc. If the damage suffered by the claimant is recognized as reparable under tort law, the element of damage is satisfied. The doctrine then considers different ways in which civil liability can be established, such as negligence, personal acts, vicarious liability, traffic accidents, malpractice, and more. Finally, the doctrine addresses causation as a necessary condition for civil liability. When all three elements and their respective conditions discussed in separate parts are met, there will be a liability to compensate the victim by making payment for the damages. The doctrine then proceeds to explain how damages should be compensated. Generally, the compensation principle is presented as a golden rule applicable to all forms and types of damages: the tortfeasor is liable to fully compensate for the damage suffered by the victim without making any profit.Considering tort law as a unified concept, the argument about the foundation of tort law (Negligence or Strict liability) has been presented as a unique principle applicable to all kinds of torts, damages, and acts that engage civil liability. However, this approach does not align with actual Iranian law based on Shiite fiqh rules. The conditions and effects of tort law differ depending on the nature of the damage, and the compensation rules vary accordingly. For instance, in cases of damage to properties, civil liability is established when physical damage to property is caused by a tortfeasor, regardless of whether negligence was involved or not. In this area, there is no distinction between intentional and unintentional harmful acts, and strict liability is recognized as the foundation of tort law. On the other hand, the conditions for pure economic or financial loss are different. These damages are not considered as engaging civil liability unless they are caused by a criminal act (intentional malicious act). The compensation principle applies to all kinds of property damages.The conditions for engaging civil liability for personal injury differ from those for property damage. Civil liability to compensate the victim with monetary payment is primarily established for unintentional acts. In cases of intentional harm, there is no civil liability, and the tortfeasor is subject to retaliation as a crime. When civil liability is recognized, similar to property damages, torts are based on strict liability. The amount of damages for any bodily injury is determined by law, and the compensation principle does not apply in this field.Regarding moral damages, the conditions for civil liability are different from other types of damages. Traditional law did not anticipate civil liability for moral damages, considering harmful acts as crimes punishable by appropriate punishment. However, in recent criminal procedure laws, civil liability alongside criminal punishment has been recognized in relation to moral damages. Although civil liability for moral damages is provided for by law, it appears that the nature of liability remains punitive for the tortfeasor. The deterrence aspect of civil liability is essential in determining damages, with the amount of money determined primarily based on the intention and malice of the harmful act and its impact on the victim. Consequently, the compensation principle does not apply in cases of moral damages, and damages are determined more by considering the circumstances of the harmful act rather than solely focusing on the harm itself.The conditions, elements, and effects of other areas of tort law such as Nuisance and Trespass differ significantly from those mentioned above, as discussed in both Fiqh's (Islamic jurisprudence) and legal Iranian doctrine.Considering all these differing conditions, elements, and remedies in governing Iranian Tort law, it becomes evident that there is no singular logic of tort in Iran; instead, there are multiple torts. The modern doctrine that follows a unified logic and approach to torts makes a significant mistake in understanding the rule of law and often leads to uncomfortable suggestions for its development. A better way to understand the applicable rules and propose new ones is to study Iranian tort law according to a multiple theory that aligns more with traditional Iranian law and Shiite fiqh rather than following the logic of tort law in French civil law or Roman-German approaches.

One of the most important areas of civil liability, civil liability is derived from possession lawsuits, during which the aggressor; By committing a behavior on his own or another's property, he causes damage to others. In England, possession lawsuits can be filed in the form of two lawsuits: aggressive (adversary) and private (private) possession lawsuits, and contrary to Iranian law, there is no provision for obstruction lawsuits, and this lawsuit is also in The format of the nuisance suit is brought up. Now, the basic question is, which of the well-known and governing theories of civil liability does the English legal system follow in dealing with possession claims (opposed possession and nuisance). To answer the question, the case law of England, which is the main basis of the country's legal system, must be examined.This article was written with the aim of civil liability arising from possession claims in English law and the possibility of adapting it in Iranian law. In terms of the purpose, the present research is an applied research, and in terms of the implementation method, it is considered part of the descriptive-analytical research. The library method was used to collect information, and the data collection tool is mostly written and theoretical. The findings of the research showed that the seizure lawsuits in Iranian law include: aggressive seizure lawsuit, nuisance lawsuit, and obstruction lawsuit. Like the contracts, the legislator has stated the common and specific conditions and elements of these claims, and the persons and judicial authorities are obliged to submit them under the same title by meeting the elements and conditions mentioned in the law. The immovable property of the object of possession, the claimant's prior possession, the defendant's right of possession, and the aggressiveness of the defendant's possession are common elements of all three lawsuits. On the other hand, the findings of the research showed that the civil liability resulting from possession claims in the laws of Iran and England is based on fault. Of course, in the case of aggressive occupation, the plaintiff does not need to prove the occurrence of damages in order to claim damages and compensation for the days of occupation, and mere occupation without consent is sufficient to fulfill the responsibility of the subsequent occupant. However, in the case of nuisance both in Iranian and English law, the claimant must prove the damage, which means that in addition to interference and disturbance in possession, damage is also one of the elements of filing a liability claim. English judges, by analyzing the elements of similar lawsuits, apply the result in similar cases, and over time it becomes the custom of judges without waiting for its legislation by the legislature.

A correct legislative policy in dealing with crimes committed in cyberspace must represent the decisive and quick actions of the legislator. Considering the impossibility of full compensation of the damages caused by cyberspace and the variety of criminal actions, the legislative policy must be formulated accordingly. As a case of such emerging issues mentioned could be made of harassment of women in cyberspace. The legislators do not have a separate regulation with regard to this. The purpose of the present article is twofold. Firstly, the commission of such crimes at the present time must face an appropriate punishment for the perpetrators of such crimes. Secondly, considering that the bill for preserving the dignity and protection of women against violence is in the process of approval in the parliament, a recommendation must be stated with the purpose of amending the legal Articles in law related to the discussion of this article. In this research, using a descriptive library method, an attempt has been made to collect materials and answer this question: is it possible, according to the existing legal provisions, to apply the current laws in dealing with the perpetrators of such cases or not? The hypothesis that we are trying to confirm in this research is the possibility of adherence to the Article 619 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1375 in dealing with such crimes.

In Iranian law, civil liability is often defined as the duty of the importer of damage compensation and its preventive function is on the sidelines, while foresighting and preventing more economic, ethical and human damages. Is more. Moreover, civil liability does not only involve the assignee of the loss-maker, but also the loss-maker must strive to prevent and intensify the loss. Therefore, the rules of preventive liability require that in some cases the liability for damages resulting from the abandonment of pre-emptive action be inflicted upon itself. Accordingly, the question to be addressed in this article is what are the rules and institutions and mechanisms and safeguards in Iran's law on preventing harm, preventing it from continuing, and preventing it from continuing. What are the shortcomings of this field? " attachment of relief ", " provisional injunction ", " attachment of frivolous claim ", " attachment of Foreigners Claim", " attachment of execution in judgment by default ", " attachment of execution or Stopping Enforcement requesting for re-trial, third person objection, last resorte " And "stoppage of official document" and triple claims of Possessor Action, Action for Disturbance of Possession, Action for Right of Exploitation, the existence of various obligations for municipalities and government agencies to prevent harm caused by human agents, the vice-president of insurance systems, and social security. Ziandideh to refer to the importer of damages and to use the guarantees of law enforcement and criminal liability in the inefficiency of civil liability rules,

Stalking is a form of harassment. Sometimes people with different motives, good or bad, constantly follow and Watch others. This behavior has been criminalized in some countries such as the USA with differential policies and measures. In criminal law of Iran, there is no crime with this title exactly, but its manifestations and examples, such as Article 619 of the Penal Code adopted in 1996, have been considered a crime, with no special punishment and security measures. It seems that through the development of cyberspace into today's life, it has become much easier to commit stalking crimes than past. therefore, general criminal policies do not make an effective deterrence. Victims in stalking crimes need legal protective and preventative measures like Protection order and Restraining order. Lack of preventive and security measures before proof of stalking crimes and conviction of offender are the most important legal shortcomings in criminal justice system of Iran. A comparative study with countries that have been successful in this regard seems useful.

Protecting the interests related to property requires that people appropriately take benefit from their own property and not interfere with the property of the others. However, in case, people interfere with the property of the others for the sake of the latter rights and interests, they are liable under the subject of the private liability. Because of ambiguity in the legal doctrine and rules with respect to the civil liability deriving from the private liability, the aim of this current paper is to investigate the concept and elements of the civil liability originating from the private liability. This paper, using a descriptive –analytical method as well as library sources and judicial decisions, has investigated the toic. In the end, we conclude, that the concept of liability of the private nuisance within the Iranian law is not appropriately specified. However, using the existing records in the foreign law and proper judicial decisions in this regard, we can specify and declare this concept and its elements.

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.

Artcle 619 of Islamic Punishment Law, approve in 1375, talks about harassing women in Iran while applying it and using it in the Iranian judicial system by women is rare and faces challenges. It is obvious that the high number of this crime within the society shows the defciency and incompetence of it. This artcle is afer an analysis of the informaton parts of this crime from legal aspects and this importance has happened with emphasize on criminology and background factors. Talking about pros and cons of the legal artcle, addressing analysis, crime discovery and the legal precedent are other aspects of this paper.

The owner of the aircraft or the enterprise which benefits from its use or operation may have civil liability for injuries to persons or property on the land or water or in the sky. Regarding this liability many questions can be raised: Who is the responsible person and what are the harmful acts and damages which can be resulted from using aircraft and how can harmonize the property rights of persons on the land or water with the right of flying aircrafts? What is the foundation of liability: Fault or strict liability? Using comparative study, we have answered to these questions and in addition to description of the present situation of legal systems, some proposals have been offered to remove the defects and fill the gaps of Iran's legal system.