ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS JOURNAL
Year:2023 | Volume:2 | Issue:2|Papers Count:34

The science of law seeks to recognize, create and manage legal facts (including human, social, experiential facts, etc. ),At the heart of such a process, there are legal theories that are responsible for ordering legal data. The birth, life, growth, decline and abandonment of a legal theory also depends on the theorist and the surrounding developments. The deeper, more precise, realistic, forward-looking, methodical and convincing the theorizing is, the more efficient the science of law becomes. The central concern of the present article is examination of some of the most important features of Professor Jafari Langroudi's thinking and a brief identification of his general and specific theories. However, beyond the apparent content found in this article, the author also seeks to draw the reader's attention to a hidden subject which, ironically, is more comprehensive, fundamental and important. And that is, that the thought of great legal thinkers should not be sought solely in realm of the technical legal points and opinion expressed by them. Rather, it is possible to understand the essence of their thought only when the intellectual bases and paradigms that support, identify and guide those thoughts are understood, as well as the characteristics of thinking, stylistics and nature of the various theories proposed by them are examined. Based on this, it can be said that the paradigmatic, methodological and theoretical studies of domestic law thinkers are some of the first steps towards identifying, discovering or creating an "Iranian legal theory".

In many transactions or contracts, the parties specify Waiver of right of termination due to the value of the goods (right or option of deception). The courts have disagreed about the scope and effects of this matter, as some have considered it related to the right of termination to any extent, Some other courts, by interpreting the will of the parties to the contract, limited the right of cancellation to the conventional and intended amount And by distinguishing it from too much, the claim of termination or rescission of the contract in case of realization of a large difference in value, even if the mentioned option of termination Waivered, has been considered to be heard and processed. The Supreme Court of Iran, in the position of resolving the dispute of the lower courts, without stating the relevant argument and in a short decision, relying on the interpretation of the will of the two parties to the contract and referring to some Jurisprudence, rejected Waver of the option of termination and the opinion of the third branch of the Supreme Court has been confirmed. In this article, with a legal review of the subject and relying on the opinions of Dr. Mohammad Jafar Jafari Langroudi, examined various opinions of the subject and criticized the decisions of the Supreme Court, and concluded that the distinction between high and excessive deception in price has no legal basis and it will cause problems in the transactions and will increase the number of lawsuits.

The unification of Judgement decision of the Supreme Court No. 810 of the Supreme Court-in addition to legal effects-it has significant economic effects because this judgement decision regards the effect of the termination of the first transaction on the subsequent transactions, even despite the ignorance of the subsequent buyers regarding the existence of the right of termination in the first contract. However, despite the existence of legal criticisms regarding this, there is no economic analysis in law and economics literature. Therefore, this article has tried to answer the question-while referring to the general principles governing the economic analysis of law and looking at the equivalence theory of Dr. Jafari Langroudi-how efficient and compatible is the discussed judgement decision with economic principles? The hypothesis of this article is that parts of the judgement decision no. 810 are considered ineffective due to negative economic consequences and are incompatible with some economic principles,This clearly shows that the economic analysis was not taken into account in issuing the said judgement decision. This research is presented with a qualitative method and the use of library study tools, in the form of two parts: the first part describes the judgement decision no. 810,and the second part analyzes it from the perspective of the economic principles and equivalence theory of Dr. Jafari Langroudi. In the end, specific short-term and long-term solutions are suggested to the groups benefiting from the results of this article.

The legal status of agreements following a dissolved contract has always been a place of dispute. On the one hand, the security of transactions requires that these transactions are stable, and on the other hand, when a prior agreement becomes void, the deterioration of subsequent contracts is inevitable. In Iranian law, the differences between legal doctrines have been reflected in the judicial decisions, and this has led to the issuance of Unification Judgment No. 810 of the general assembly of the supreme court. The current research argues, using the explanation and the opposite meaning of the aforementioned precedent verdict, that the existence of the right of treating the contract as repudiated, whether legal or contractual, does not prevent the possession of a person who becomes the owner as a result of a contract. However, if another person acquires subsequent ownership of the same property as a result of a subsequent contract, his transaction remains valid until the application of the right of termination of the original seller. Also, suppose the holder of the right of revocation terminates the first agreement. In that case, the subsequent transactions will also be dissolved from the time of the revocation of the first transaction, unless the person who became the owner as a result of the second transaction was ignorant of the existence of the right of revocation in the first transaction, and as a normal person, it is not possible for him to acquire knowledge.

One of the most important crimes is theft. This theft, depending on the case, may be done by one or more people. Obviously, one of the guarantees of the serious and main execution of the crime of theft is the restitution of the property by the thieves. In the assumption that several people commit theft, i. e. steal another's property together, the main question is, to what extent are these people responsible for returning the property? Is their responsibility joint and several or relative? In response to this question, there are many differences of opinion in the judicial procedure. The majority of courts, especially the Supreme Courts, have strongly opposed the joint liability of partners in theft. Of course, there are few judgments that do not agree with this, and this conflict of opinions provided the basis for issuing a unified judicial precedent. According to the unified judicial precedent No. 799 dated 2020/10/06, the responsibility of the partners in theft is relative,this means that they are responsible for the amount of property they have stolen, and if it is not possible to determine the amount of property, their responsibility is equal. Despite this, the unified judicial precedent No. 799 can be criticized. In fact, it appears that the liability of partners in theft is joint and several. In other words, the thief is the usurper, and according to the rules of usurpation, the responsibility of usurpers is joint and several. Of course, the imposition of joint and several liability does not mean the final establishment of responsibility, rather, each thief is responsible for the amount of property she/he stole, and if it is not clear how much each thief stole, their responsibility is equal. However, the purpose of this article is to answer the aforementioned question in an analytical-descriptive manner and with a broad look at judicial opinions, jurists' opinions, doctrine and emphasizing on the mentioned unified judicial precedent.

Unification of Judgments Decision 7/14/1383-668, Sharia adults under the age of eighteen, who are called juveniles in the law, based on the jurisprudential theory of Tahrir al-Wasila and Article 1210 of the Civil Code (amendment 61) and Unification of Judgments Decision 5/30 10/64, who say that the growth and removal of Protection (Hajr) is necessary only for the financial possessions of Sharia adults and they do not think that simply filing a incapacity action in court and handling it necessarily means the seizure of property. He is considered to have the right to file a lawsuit for the payment of the financial object of judgement. In this article, in the form of judicial procedural criticism, with legal and legal reasons, the aforementioned vote has been opposed in two areas: one is about the base of the vote, which is the non-financial eligibility of juveniles,The other is about the result of the decision, that is the jurisdiction of the lawsuit to withdraw the payment of the financial litigation from the convicted person. In rejecting the basis of the opinion, the common sense and the principle of ineligibility for intercession and the survival of the sign of the growth of 18-year-olds in other laws were discussed, along with another interpretation of Article 1210. And in rejecting the result of the decision, it was mentioned about the indirect Financial state of the incapacity action, the change of ownership in property and financial affairs, the lack of non-financial eligibility with the non-financial litigation, and the non-profitability or non-profitability of incapacity action.

Unanimous decision No. 607 of the General Board of the Supreme Court, in terms of the way of looking at the nature the profession of lawyer, is the place of thought. Begman's advocacy is considered a job and like other professions, a lawyer receives a salary for providing his services to the client, but being a lawyer's job or receiving a salary is not related to being a business profession. Because in commercial jobs, the main goal is to get more profit and speculation, and the principles governing the market and economy are current in it, but in professions such as litigation (advocacy), litigation, teaching, medicine, etc., the main goal is not to earn profit and speculation. For example, if we consider the proceedings as business affairs, the judge should think only about his own profit and involve his profit in the proceedings, which is not the case. The same meaning exists in litigation, and the lawyer defends the client's legal rights in court, and receiving a salary is secondary to the main goal. For this reason, advocacy is mentioned in the second chapter of the Constitution and in the section on the rights of the nation, and the petitioner has not mentioned advocacy in Article 2 of the Trade Law in the position of enumerating commercial jobs. In the Law on Trade Union Affairs and the Law on Municipalities, lawyering is not included among commercial jobs. Therefore, the law office is not a place of business and is not subject to the regulations of commercial places, including the right of business and trade and the law of 1356, placing the profession of lawyer in the Facilitation Law is inconsistent with the nature of this profession and will be harmful to the judicial system of the country.

According to the binding precedent (No. 561) of the Supreme Court's general board dated 18. 6. 1991, all executive and enforcement activities against the insolvent trader and also the transfer of his properties after the date of bankruptcy is void and null of right. In this paper, the author with a comparative perspective, investigates and surveys the legal nature and basis of the limitation and prohibition of the insolvent merchant in his transactions, and concludes that due to the substance of insolvency law, the payment and the transfer have an extensive concept which includes the executive and enforcement measures, as well. the mentioned interpretation which is considered in the binding precedent of the Supreme Court general board complies with the substance of bankruptcy regulations, the interests of the creditors, and the public order of the economic system and has positive effects on the process of liquidation. Keywords: statutory intervention, legal measures, merchant, bankruptcy, insolvency, incapacity, payment.

Many contractual and administrative services of carriers, especially in the field of sea transportation, are provided by their commercial representatives, so that in most cases, traders, especially shippers, only deal with the representative and basically do not communicate with the carrier or the ship owner. This issue is especially prominent when the shipping operation is carried out by a foreign shipping company. However, after damage to the cargo or violation of the carrier's obligations for any reason, the commercial representative benefits from the immunity resulting from the "principle of non-responsibility of the representative for original actions" and in this regard, the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court has considered the case of the sender against the commercial representative of the carrier to be inadmissible in the unanimous ruling No. 29 dated 10/7/1363. This is despite the fact that the said decision was issued by some business representatives regardless of their role as a contract holder, and on the other hand, in the case of foreign transport operators, it obliges traders to refer to foreign transport companies that do not have any property or assets in Iran, and in this way, many maritime losses of traders remain uncompensated.

In 1974, the Supreme Court of Iran brought foreign currency into the category of money and made the delay in its payment subject to the 12% rate of Damages for late payment stipulated in Article 719 of the Civil Procedure code approved in 1939. In this article, the mentioned Unification Judgment Decision has been analyzed in a descriptive and analytical way, and by examining the issue, it seems that, considering the difference between currency and money, the Supreme Court has taken a wrong path, because, currency is considered as the goods in domestic legal relations and it is exchanged for money. People's different goals in acquiring currency and its use are also different from using money. As a result, applying a fixed rate for late payment does not entail applying the same rate for currency. In the current situation, the legislator that it is confused the issue of Damages with reduction in the value of money, the Unification Judgment Decision has been criticized is invalid based on abrogation of article 719 and the non-provide its provisions in the new civil procedure code and especially because in the new code, the official inflation rate and price change index for The assessment of the responsibility for reduction in the value of money has been approved on the fact that it is only "calculable" in terms of money. This does not mean that no damages can be paid for the delay in the payment of the currency, but it seems like the Damages for late payment of money, the provision can be claimed by proving the legal conditions for claiming damages.

According to the unification of Judgments decision of the supreme court, No. 43 dated 01/11/1971, Contrary to the substantiated and documented theory of the country's general prosecutor, the ruling of Article 117 of the Registration Code is related to a conflicting transaction that is made with a notarial document. Because despite the mandatory registration of documents, if the transaction of real estate is done with an ordinary document, based on Articles 46, 47 and 48 of the Registration Code, that ordinary document is not actionable in the court. As a result, its contents will not have the ability to conflict with the notarial document of the next contract so that the action can be considered subject to Article 117 of the Registration Code. This interpretation is clearly against the text of the law. Because the legislator, knowing the provisions of Articles 46, 47 and 48 of the Registration Code, added "ordinary document" to the first part of Article 117, in the amendments of 1312 and in this way, it has supported the purchasers with an ordinary document and prohibited the sellers from doing any transaction contrary to the first contract with criminal penalties. Because according to Article 62 of the Law on the Development of the Country approved in 2016, ordinary documents whose legal validity has been proven in the court will have the ability to conflict with the notarial document. And this ruling contradicts the reasoning of that unification of judgments decision and is in conflict with it. As a result, the recent law has implicitly abrogated that decision. Therefore, in the current legal situation, the Article 117 of the Registration Code applies to all notarial transactions that are contrary to the ordinary or notarial transaction.

Carriage of air cargo is done by air carriers (Airlines) in all countries. There are different rules and regulation in this field in order to regulate the relationship between the carrier and the cargo owner and to determine the liability of either side against the other in this relationship. This carriage is done either in domestic level and within the territory of a country, or in international level and from one country to another country. To accommodate this, the regulations are made for both levels of carriage i. e. domestic and international. This article is going to study the rules on the carriage of air cargo in international level and for this purpose a case on the subject and the decisions made by courts on it is studied in details. These decisions which were made between 2018 to 2020 are issued by two trial and appeal courts of Tehran province in Iran.

The Unification Judgment No. 832 of the general assembly of the supreme court, has ended the debate about the possibility of filing a lawsuit against the mortgage of the same debtor by the buyer and the transferee in general. The content of the above-mentioned verdict indirectly indicates the possibility of transferring the mortgaged property by the mortgagor. It is clear that the non-invalidity of this transaction does not mean that it is entirely valid, but this transaction is in compliance with the rights of the mortgagor, and therefore, it is considered to have the state of Adam Nofouz Mora'a. Accordingly, in cases where the transaction is made with the preservation of the rights of the mortgagor, it is not possible to file a claim against the mortgagor, regardless of whether the debtor of the assigned debt has also changed and the transferee is considered a debtor, or the debtor has not been transferred but the transferee has accepted the collection of the debt from the debtor,Although the claim for the mortgage redemption has priority over the lawsuit obliging against the mortgagor to redeem the mortgaged property, and moreover, the enforcement of the lawsuit for the mortgage redemption has priority over the claim for annulment of the transfer of mortgaged property.

The principle of privity of the court judgment together with the principle of Res Judicata would not bar the beneficiary of the court judgment to invoke the content thereof against third parties to take advantage of the legal situation conferred to him by the judgment. Anyhow, if the judgment prejudices a third party right the "third party opposition appeal" is available for the aggrieved third party. The important point of this way of appeal is to understand the exact meaning of "third party" when speaking of such way. The importance of the issue is much more when such third party is trying to challenge a judgment issued by a court of appeal setting aside the fist instance court's judgment in a lawsuit of first instance in which the third party appellate were involved. This situation received different approach among the different branches of the courts of appeal in Bushehr Province which amounted to issuance of a Judgment Unification Decision from the Court of Cassation of Iran. I try to justify the premises of this decision in following note.

Le droit d'appel appartient à toute partie qui y a intérêt, si elle n'y a pas renoncé. Dans certains cas, la personne qui y a intérêt, a le droit de choisir les voies de recours. Il est possible pour le bénéficiaire de choisir une autre voie de recours. Par exemple, pendant le délai de l'opposition, il peut choisir l'appel ou la méthode pourvoi en cassation, ou pendant le délai d'appel, il peut choisir la méthode pourvoi en cassation. Dans ce cas, la question se pose de savoir si cette action peut être approuvée du point de vue du droit procédural ou non? la Cour de cassation n'a pas examiné cette action contre du droit procédural dans son la arrêt de unification juricpredence n° 819 du 5 avril 2022. Selon cet arrêt bénéficiaire a demandé la méthode pourvoi en cassation pendant le délai d'appel. Cette décision a été rendue correctement, mais elle est critiquée par certains. Dans cet article, nous analysons différents aspects de cette decision Et nous répondons à ces critiques.

In the rulings of the Supreme Court called Unification of Judgment Decision, regarding cases where multiple injuries lead to determining the amount of blood money or atonement that reaches half of the full amount, a dispute arose as to whether the blood money for an injury should reach half of the full amount in order to be appealable in the Supreme Court or If the total quorum reaches this quorum, the jurisdiction of the court in the appeal proceedings will be realized. This dispute was resolved by the Iranian General Board of the Supreme Court in such a way that the sum of damages for the total injuries is sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and there is no need for one injury to have such an amount of damages. This Unification of Judgment Decision issued on number 808 seems to be contrary to the philosophy of matters assigned to the Supreme Court and it does not seem to have any correspondence with other issues of jurisdiction in this regard.

Competent court to deal with the third executive objection in cases of issuing judicial commission,grantor of commission or its executor(Justification and criticism of the uniform judicial vote No. 802-18/09/1399 of the General Council of the Supreme Court)By Dr. Reza Shah Husseini Articles 146 and 147 of the Law on the Implementation of Civil votes, under the title of third party objection, deal with the method of objection by a third party to the confiscation of the property of the losing party and how to deal with it without the third party objecting to the principle of the decision. This type of objection against the third party's objection to the principle of the vote (main objection) is known as executive third party objection. In many cases, the property of the losing party is located outside the jurisdiction of the court issuing the original judgment under which the enforcement action is under its jurisdiction. In these cases, the court delegates the seizure and continuation of executive operations to another court by granting judicial commission. Regarding the jurisdiction of the court handling the third party's executive objection to the confiscation of property, there is a difference in inference between the court granting judicial commission and the court executing it. The Supreme Court of the country, according to the uniform judicial vote No. 802-18/9/1399, has taken action by separating the general judicial commission and the commission with respect to certain property in order to resolve the dispute and create unity of procedure. The uniform judicial vote can be justified in some ways and it seems to be criticized in other ways. In this article, while justifying the said vote, we have also noted the points of criticism.

In the "Medical Council of Islamic Republic of Iran Act" 2004, there are a Quasi-Judicial tribunal (Guild Court) for medical professional and disciplinary violations, including three-stages trial: the primary disciplinary board, appeals board, and then the supreme board. Although Article 40 of this Act, declared that Supreme Board’s decisions are final judgment, the supplementary note of article 40 in 2005 declares that such final decisions are "Appealable in the Court of Appeals". In the interpretation of this note, a difference was occurred amongst some appeal courts,based on whether the jurisdiction of the appeals court in proceedings, is only "supervisory procedural on law" or is "substantive" (=on the merits). Unification of Judgments Decision number 797 from the Supreme Court’s General Board, held that the word of "Appealable" in the note, has used in its ordinary meaning, and therefore is subjected to general rules in Procedure Act. As a result, the court of appeals considered inherit jurisdiction to substantive proceedings. But considering that: 1. Quasi-Judicial nature of the medical council's disciplinary boards, into the court of appeals status and position,2. The disciplinary board's specialized jurisdiction to guild matters,3. The terminological concept of “Appeal” in reviewing non-final orders,4. Judicial custom and principles of procedure predicates that proceedings in "Third Tribunal" generally is restricted to procedural supervision "on law",5. Futility in four-stage substantive trial in guild matters,6. And finally, justifiability of procedural supervision on-law in the appeals court,It seems that attributing regulatory and supervisory position to court of appeals is more consistent with the principles of procedure and judicial customs, and practical considerations. This article intends to justifying the latter interpretation based on the descriptive and analytical methods and using documentary sources. Main arguments are based on deduction and induction, and referring to principles of procedure.

In Iran’s law, contrary to some other countries, judges are liable for faults or errors they commit in their professional duties. Principle 171 of the constitution, article 30 of the law of supervision on judges conduct and article 24 of its regulation, describe the right to and the course of claiming loss due to fault or error of the judge. Courts’ different interpretation of these articles in relation to manner and process of trial of such litigations resulted in issuance of unanimous verdict number 791 by the supreme court of Iran. In the writer’s opinion, this verdict cannot guarantee some constitutional rights of individuals. The mandate to follow the order of referring to superior judicial disciplinary court and then to public court, impedes accessibility of courts for individual lawsuits (Principle 34). Furthermore, if the writ of non-suit is issued for not following the order indicated by this verdict, procedure of trial will be more costly and time consuming for the plaintiff and also will create distrust towards the judicial system in general public. Therefore, contrary to the order indicated by the unanimous verdict number 791, it seems that not mandating to follow such order, will be more aligned with interpretation in favor of plaintiffs based on their constitutional rights.

Executive operations in the registration office may cause harm to the rights of a third party, similar to executive operations in the judiciary. In such cases, the authority for addressing the third-party complaint against the registration executive operations will vary depending on whether the third party's claim is supported by an official document, a court order, or an ordinary document. In the first two cases, the Registration of Deeds and Properties Office, relying on official documents and judicial orders, will suspend the executive operations and release the seized property. However, if the third party's claim is supported by an ordinary document, the registration office does not have the jurisdiction to address the legitimacy of the third party's rights, and the executive operations will not be halted except through the initiation of a third-party lawsuit and a court order. However, in certain exceptional cases, the registration authority suspends the effect and enforcement operations based on a regular document, according to a third party's claim. Nevertheless, despite the aforementioned subdivisions, a definite criterion for determining the court's jurisdiction in handling the third-party complaint will be the judicial nature of the objection

Article 54 of the Law on Removing Obstacles to Competitive Production, a note to Article 9 of the Law on Increasing the Productivity of the Agricultural Sector and Natural Resources, and the Ministry of Agricultural Jihad, in cooperation with the country's Property and Deed Registration Organization, is obliged to remove the interference caused by the implementation of parallel laws and regulations in national lands. government and individuals exceptions to amend the ownership documents and issue agricultural documents after resolving the disputes and according to Article 3 of the Executive Regulations, Note (3) of the Addendum to Article (9) of the Law on Increasing the Productivity of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Sector, the subject of Article (54) The Law on Removing Obstacles to Competitive Production and Improving the Country's Financial System, the Interference Removal Commission was established at the province level. Article 9 of the law on increasing the productivity of the agricultural and natural resources sector also stipulates the duty of the mentioned ministry to establish the ownership of the government and obtain ownership documents in the name of the government on national resources and favorable and state lands, respecting the privacy of the villages and removing the interference caused by the implementation of the regulations. It is parallel until the end of the fifth five-year plan of economic development. Although the cases mentioned in determining the jurisdiction of the said commission have been clear, with the description of the multitude of laws and regulations governing government lands, there have been doubts about the scope of the jurisdiction of the said commission. An example of these doubts is reflected in the disagreement of the branches of the Supreme Court of the country on the authority of the commission to enter into the case of expropriation. . . . . . .

One of the old problems of Iranian law is the conflict of competences that exists in practice between the organization of registration of documents and real estate and the judiciary. One of these cases, which is not ambiguous in the laws, but when it comes to an execution where disputes are considered, is when a document is executed, but one of the parties or a third party objects to the execution. In short, if the objection is about the issuing the execution, this matter is under the jurisdiction of the judiciary, but if the objection is about the execution itself, it is under the jurisdiction of the head of the local registry. The Supreme Court tried to resolve a dispute regarding the third party's objection to the execution of the document, according to judicial unanimity award number 784, but the investigation showed that the award not only did not resolve dispute, but also due to ambiguity. It may have caused more differences. If the dispute arises either from the third party or from the parties, it is related to the execution stage of the document and has an executive nature (according to the regulation of executive "operations"), it is within the jurisdiction of the head of the registry, but if the dispute is about the executive itself. or the dispute is quarrel, in this case, without a doubt, the dispute should be resolved in the court.

The Unification of Judgments Decision, which is the subject of this article's criticism, was issued following the Disagreement between the first and fifth branches of the Supreme Court, in the case of Embryo donation lawsuit. The fifth branch of the Supreme Court of Iran, considering the request for embryo donation as a lawsuit that has a defendant, declared the competent court according to those The fifth branch of the Supreme Court of Iran, considering the request for embryo donation as a lawsuit that has a defendant, declared the courts of Tehran as competent court, but the first branch of the Supreme Court of Iran did not consider the said request to be a petition and considered it as non-contradictory affairs, Also, based on the decision of the mentioned branch, the couple has the possibility to file this request at their place of residence. With the occurrence of the disagreement, the No 755 Unification of Judgments Decision was issued in 2015 and according to that, the decision of the first branch of the Supreme Court of the country, was found accordance with the law. The said Unification of Judgments Decision, like many Unification of Judgments Decision that has been issued, has strengths and weaknesses, and it was determined by analyzing these strengths and weaknesses that: The Unification of Judgments Decision has been issued considering the non-contradictory nature of the embryo donation request. The effects of non-contradictory affairs requests are loaded on it and it is in harmony with social requirements, but besides these features,The Unification of Judgments Decision has expanded its scope beyond the branches disagreement, it has repeated the same provisions of the regulation. and, contrary to the family protection law, it has not deemed it necessary to submit a petition.

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.

AbstractThe General Board of the Supreme Court has resolved the dispute in a Unification of Judgment Decision No. 729 regarding the competent judicial authority to deal with the declared crime under the title of "Electronic Fraud". Based on this decision, in cases where the origin and destination of the money transfer are in different jurisdictions, the jurisdiction where the bank that opened the account of victim is located has been recognized as competent to handle the case. It seems that there is a difference in the elements of the crime between the fraud described in the "Case Report" and "Unification of Judgment Decision", in such a way that in the first one, it is a traditional type of fraud and in the second one, it is an electronic type. Contrary to the Unification of Judgment Decision and based on the arguments expressed in this article, including attention to the place of completion of the crime, in the mentioned fraud, whether traditional or electronic, the judicial authority of the destination of the money transfer competent to the proceedings has been stated.

Dispute, the subject of the proceeding( The Critique and analysis of the Binding precedent No. 719, Rendered by the General Board of the supreme court)Shahab kiayee 1Abstract: Due to the unsustainable of the concept of litigation in civil proceedings, a complete definition of civil litigation and its constituent elements has not been provided. Nowadys, the subject of civil proceedings is nothing but the dispute of the parties to the proceedings and the dispute can be based on the quarrel of the parties or not. as a result, the dispute does not mean that the parties do not agree on a single subject and in fact, it means an in rights uncertaninty which terminaite the by intervention of the court. As a result, it is possible in some cases the parties agree on a single subject but there may be dispute in some conditions or on the contrary, it is possible do not agree on the dispute subject of, but with the intervention of a judge in an absentee and judicial end their situation uncertainty of right. Key words: dispute_litigation_the subject of the proceeding_judicial proceedingPh. D in private law, university of Tehran _lawyerEmail: shahabkiayee@ut. ac. ir

AbstractThe relief sought of the action is one of the most important issues and one of the three pillars of the action. Based on the principle of dominance of the parties to the determination of the matter of the action and the principle of freedom to choose the form of Relief, the civil judge is subject to the Relief of the action, and cannot interfere in determining the Relief. Determining the competence of the court in any action, although it is a matter of judgment and at the disposal of the judge, but according to the rule "the jurisdiction of the court is subordinate to the Relief" the judge must determine the jurisdiction of the court within the framework of the Relief of the petitioner. This issue is well reflected in a Binding Precedent Issued by the General Board of the Supreme Court No. 670, under the phrase "The court will consider the claim only according to the way the plaintiff considers Relief". But only paying attention to the petitioner's relief, in determining the competence, can led to problems in the proceedings. The said vote has positive and negative points that are studied in this article.

Since a long time, one of the mandatory contents of the petition, whether it is a preliminary or a complaint against the decision, has been the inclusion of the residence and the exact address of the litigants, and such a requirement has been provided in order to facilitate the service of judicial documents. It is reasonable to expect the litigants or their lawyers and representatives to notify the court of the change in their address, and as long as the aforementioned order is not followed, the litigants will be served in the same place as before. The question that has been raised and disputed in the judicial procedure is whether the precedent of service in the first instance may be extended to the stage of appeal against the decision or not? Unifying decision No. 23/1981 of the General Board of the Supreme Court, in response to the question raised, determined the independence of each of the stages of the proceedings in terms of the precedent service and did not consider the precedent of service in the first instance to be applicable in the appeal stage. This article has been written as a criticism of the said decision and the proposal of opposing thoughts, as well as reconciling the issue with the regulations related to electronic judicial service.

Based on the precedence verdict No. 1673, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court grants the authority to the judges in deciding whether to refer or not refer a matter to court-appointed experts. After determination and explanation of the issue, the current research considers verdict No. 1673 to be compatible with the nature of court-appointed expertise, because expertise is a status that judges confirm by appealing to an expert. Therefore, it is natural that the role of the judges is active in this regard, and they have the authority to refer the matter to an expert. However, it should be considered that it is related to the implication of expertise is physical and not situational and intellectual. In natural signification, only a person who has knowledge of the subject and is an expert in the matter will notice the implication. Therefore, if the issue is so complicated that normal people and judges cannot understand the meaning, in this case, the judges are obliged to leave the diagnosis of the issue to the expert, and these cases are not included in the abovementioned verdict.

The answer to the question in which cases the judgment should be overruled depends on the correct understanding of the legal system and the functioning of the procedural rules of each country. In our laws, the rules of procedure have provided ways to attack conter the decision, which are open to the beneficiaries. But the most important thing is whether every judgment should be annule? The General Assembly of the Supreme Court in its decision No. 1079, which has been issued for 65 years, provides general rules and specific examples to enumerate cases of annulation of a judgment by virtue of law. The value of this judgment, in addition to counting examples, is a warning to the judicial system for annulating the judgment for unimportant reasons or harmless errors,delays and density of lawsuits and waste of social and judicial capital. The present article deals with the important aspects of the Unanimity Resolution No. 1079 and hopes that by studying its aspects, an important step will be taken in better understanding the legal system.

The Action to quiet title (real estate ownership Law suit) has had ups and downs in Iranian Jurisprudence. After the approval of the registration code, the courts considered the official document as the only way to prove the ownership for real estate. This procedure has changed over time,especially after the Islamic Revolution the courts dealt with the Action to quiet title with private document or any other type of evidence and on this basis they accepted the annulment of the official document. In the 1370s, the court's procedures changed to support the official documents of ownership and the registration code. In such a way that dismissal lawsuit was not accepted except by the owner of the official document. Due to the doubts raised by the Guardian Council regarding the legitimacy of the requirement of the registration to prove ownership and transfer of properties, the Jurisprudence was again inclined to accept these types of lawsuits, and annulment of official document based on private document or opponent transactions, increased in the courts. Despite that, currently, most courts do not accept lawsuits for proof of ownership that are not accompanied by the requirement for the preparation of an official document. According to the existing regulations, including Article 62, this procedure can be criticized and is a kind of clear violation of the law. In this article, we have tried to review the evolution of the action to quiet title in the Jurisprudence and criticize and analyze some important Judgments have issued in this regard.