Legal Research
Year:2012 | Volume:- | Issue:57|Papers Count:14

D'apres les regles de droit civil, la propriete est un droit absolu et souverain. La proprete du sol emporte la propriete du dessus et du dessous. Cependant dans l'histoire de droit iranien le proprietaire ne pouvait pas construire son batiment avec une hauteur plus que les autres, s'il couvre la vue sur les immeubles de ses voisins. Avec l'augmentation de la population dans les villes, la legislation d'urbanisme en Europe, aux Etats-Unis et en Iran est devenue un sujet inevitable. Ces dispositions imposent les restrictions contre les proprietaires en ce qui concerne la hauteur des constructions et leur alignement.Chaque proprietaire doit obtenir le permis de construire de la mairie. Ce permis constitue la sanction des regles d'urbanisme. Ces restrictions creent en meme temps les droits de servitude reciproques de la lumiaire pour les proprietaires, la vue, la securite des voisins et etc... La violation des regles d'urbanisme par le maire contre une certaine somme d'argent constitue une corruption flagrante et punissable. Les voisins peuvent demander l'annulation de tel permis de construire de la Cour de Justice Administrative. De plus, le maire se trouve devant la poursuite penale et l'action de la responsabilite civile pour cette violation.

Economic problems constitute one of the major criss facing human society. One of these problems are the wrongdoings committed in the process of supplying goods to the market. In an attempt to prevent these and to protect consumers, some legal systems have criminalized such behaviour. This issue is examined in this article with reference to Islamic (Imamiyya) jurisprudence, Iranian law and common law.

Wrongdoings that harm the consumer may take place in two stages: 1- prior to the offer of goods or services and 2- during the offer of goods or services. This paper reviews wrongdoings in these two stages such as hoarding, concealing and refraining from the offer of goods, overpricing and use of short weights, lack of license, violation of health regulations and standards, not listing prices, or compulsory sales.

Control of the administration may be undertaken in a judicial or a non-judicial way. Control by an Ombudsman is a non-judicial method. This control which has spread after 1806 in a word is the parliamentary means of controlling the administration or executive body of government. Different institutions establish this control: in the Iran the General Inspection Organization. in France the Mediateur and. in England, Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. This article studies the different criteria for the ombudsman in the above mentioned countries.

Labour supply and demand, particularly in developing countries, are generally two Inappropriate matters, and these countries face the problem of unemployment and its social consequences seriously. In this regard, the use of new opportunities in employment relationships can reduce some of this burden. With the growth of ICT, labour relationships have been formed in new contexts and suppliers with demanders beyond their e-business (electronic commerce) as well as the conditions for preparing labour services outside the workplace environment (TeleWorking), are experiencing a new era in labour relations. This area must definitely be supported by Goverments and, consistent with the experiences of developed countries, support the labour forces in these conditions.

In the modern history of criminal justice systems, victims of crime have not been given their deserved role and appropriate position. Criminological findings show that attention to the role and position of victims has significant effects in resolving the complicated puzzle of criminal phenomena and can even be effective in secondary victimization prevention. Today, one of most significant instances of human rights which are applicable to all victims is "respect to victims" placed under the title fair treatment. Fair treatment and fair trail are two important aspects of the puzzle called human rights: the first is related to victims, and the second refers to offenders and the accused persons. Informing victims of their rights and ensuring the safety of victims and their witnesses are two important instances of victim's rights which covers both substantive and formal rights. In this paper, the approach of the Iranian criminal justice system, the law of some other countries and international standards to these issues will be reviewed.

Crimes are mostly deeds committed; but may omission of an act be regarded as an act leading to murder, and the one who has omitted that act as a murderer? There are different opinions concerning this question; and the origin of this difference is as follows: "Maya causal relationship be established between omission of an act and death?" Some scholars have argued that omission of an act is a negative entity; and a negative entity cannot be the origin of some existential entities such as death or mayhem; and, thus, they do not regard the one who has omitted an act as a murderer. But it seems that such a philosophical look at the causal relationship is not correct; and the one who omits an act may be regarded as a murderer provided that the nature of his act (omission of an act) be "to cause the other's death" and not "not to hinder his death".

Remission is a legal instrument to relinquishor put a stop, at any time, on the implementation of any type of punishment for a convict after a verdict of a criminal court, of any type or degree, is legally finalized. Remission of a sentence or part of it may be awarded fully or partially, absolutely or conditionally, whether the sentence has been put into practice or not. This means that the law empowers an executive body such as the Head of State, a minister or the Cabinet-in the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Supreme Leader on the request of the Head of the Judiciary Power- to relinquish a sentence being executed under its discretion within the law. The institution of remission has existed in Iranian penal law for a long period of time. At present, according to paragraph 11 of Article 110 of the Iranian Constitution and Section 24 of the Iranian penal law, the pardoning of a sentenced offender is granted by the Supreme Leader on the request of the Head of the Judiciary Power. Detailed regulations of how and when remission takes place and who may be a good candidate to be pardoned is determined in the By-law of Commission of Remission and Mitigation of punishment of Convicts 12/9/87 ratified by the Head of the Judiciary. Before the Islamic Revolution, the Cabinet was in charge of ratifying regulations, but after the Revolution, the Head of the Judiciary Power is in charge. The first By-law was ratified by the Cabinet in 28/7/1324. Later, the regulations were amended or completely changed and replaced by a new set of rules more than ten times, none of which took place so soon as did the By-laws of the Commission of Remission and Mitigation and Substitution of punishment in 16/5/87. This By-law did not live long and soon after its ratification, within 4 months in 12/9/87, it was replaced by a new By-law. The old By-law also introduced a new term substitution of punishment to be awarded under the regulations of remission. This replacement was very sudden and unusual, and no reason or formal explanation was provided for the event. More importantly a key word, namely substitution of punishment was omitted from the title of the new By-law but remained un-touched in the text. Accordingly, this essay is designed to discuss the changes, particularly substitution of punishment by means of remission, in the light of an analysis of the definition of remission in law and a historical account of its implementation in conjunction with a comparative analysis of the last two By-laws, i. e. the By-laws of 16/5/87 and 12/9/87. It is concluded that the new By-law (12/9/87) is ultra vires and is in sharp contrast with the law where it recommends substitution of punishment to be graced by means of remission. This is because the term substitution of punishment is not in harmony with the literal and legal definition/meaning of remission. Legally speaking, substitution of punishment is a task which has merely been bestowed on courts that can be decided upon when passing a sentence. Thus, an executive body, the Commission for Remission cannot forfeit this legal power. Moreover, this will harm the principle of independence of the courts and judges and will undermine stability of their verdicts.

The victim is an important actor in criminal procedure and has a role in response to criminality. This role is recognized by criminal policy makers. Moreover, the victim has an important role in contractive justice. This victim's position has a foundation in human rights, criminal policy and criminology. In this paper, a study is made of Iranian criminal policy in context victim's role in criminal response.

Financial markets play in important role in developing the economic grounds of countries and in recent years, innovation in such markets has seen an outstanding growth. One such innovation of great importance is great importance is “derived tools” that vary day by day. One of such tools is the “future contract”. A “future contract” is a legal and binding agreement between two parties (seller and buyer) which is based on buying or selling a goods or a definite financial tool for a certain time in the future by drawing attention to a definite agreed price in day of conclusion of contract.as the debate of entry over the such contracts into irans stock market is beginning, some lawyers and jurists believe that such contract are void because, in their opinion future contract represent a kind of “kaly-to-kaly-sale” finally based on the consensus of jurists, we can state that this contract is both void and incompatible whit the legal principles of country.this article tries to explain and clarify these contracts, posing legal and juridical debates regarding these contracts, affirming the trueness of such contracts whether tram the viewpoint of law or jurisprudence.

According to Article 22 of the Administrative Offences Trial Law, the Supreme Supervisory Board mentioned in this article can inspect and take a decision on all judgments issued or being issued to enforce this law or similar stipulations. The Judiciary's General Directorate for Legal Affairs has declared in its advisory opinion that the Supreme Supervisory Board, based on the aforesaid article and generality and absoluteness of powers of the Supervisory Board in taking a decision according to is what mentioned above and non-stipulation of this power in the inspection of judgments to procedural trial, can issue an acquittal or a conviction judgment after nullification of the judgments of the administrative offences trial boards. It seems that the Supreme Supervisory Board, as a supervisory authority, can merely inspect and take a decision on the judgments of the Administrative Offences Trial Law; in the cases of violations of the administrative offences trial law and similar regulations by the aforementioned boards, it can nullify and quash their judgments and send the matter to the related administrative offences trial board for retrial. And, after the nullification or quashing of the judgments it cannot issue an acquittal or conviction judgment.

It is well established that, according to the Doctrine of Mitigation of Damages, a party who relies on a breach of contract, must take such measures as are reasonable in the circumstances to mitigate the loss, including any loss of profit, resulting from the breach. If he fails to take such measures, the party in breach may claim a reduction in the damages to the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated. That is to say, the breaching party is not liable for harm suffered by the aggrieved party to the extent that the harm could have been reduced by the latter party's taking reasonable steps. The aggrieved party is entitled to recover any expenses reasonably incurred in attempting to reduce the harm. In this article, the philosophy of the above doctrine is addressed. It is argued that the doctrine is acceptable to almost all schools of thought or, at least, not rejected by them. However, it is more acceptable to the economic theory of law, which takes into account, consequentialism, welfarism and aggregation ism. Therefore, it is submitted that the Doctrine of Mitigation of Damages is useful to be expressly accepted into the Iranian legal system.

On 22 January 2004, the Islamic Republic of Iran passed an Act, providing for the recognition of electronic transactions and documents known as the "Electronic Commerce Act". The Act recaptures the essential provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law by adapting them to Iranian context and expanding the scope of the Act. Under Article 1 of the Act, "This Law consists of a set of rules and principles to be applied for easy and secure communication of information in electronic intermediaries using new communication systems". The formulation of the Article is very important in two aspects: 1. Its scope of application is not restricted to "commercial activities" as stated in instruments such as the UNCITRAL Model Law. The provisions of the Article extend to "commercial" as well as "non-commercial" activities. 2. Likewise, its scope of application is not restricted to "internet or computer network" communications; but to all other electronic mediums such as electronic data interchange, electronic funds transfer, email, electronic bulletin boards, fax transmissions, telephone, etc. In other words, it pertains to "any form of transaction in which the parties interact electronically rather than by physical exchanges or direct physical contact. Finally, since the act pertains to any form of transaction in which parties interact electronically; therefore the title “electronic communication Act” is more consistent whit the provisions of the act rather than the title the title “electronic commerce act”.