The development of international trade law in the field of intellectual property results in the international disputes. Also intellectual property is being breached in non-contractual relationship. These facts cause disputes the subject and parties of which are related to different countries. For example a trademark has been registered in Iran, is being used illegally on goods produced in Germany that are distributed in France. Which COURT is COMPETENT in this case? There is no international treaty on this subject. So the extraction of rules should be done based on different documents relating to the other subjects. National rules are often tacit or synoptic. Defendant’, s domicile/residence, the place of registration and the place of harmful act are the most important grounds of jurisdiction in IP disputes.

Determining the COMPETENT COURT in electronic consumer contracts is considered an essential matter in e.commerce law. But it becomes more important when consumer contracts are at issue, because of his/her need to be protected.In this paper, first come contractual clauses which determine the competenet COURT and their conditions and restrictions, then are studied the connecting factors that are used to determine such a COURT in case the parties have failed to make a choice and their relevance in Cyber-space and the last part concerns the exceptional rules of consumer contracts.

With the increasing use of the Internet, copyright in the cyberspace can be easily violated by millions of users around the world, and the copyright holder faces the question that which COURT is COMPETENT in the actions against multiple violators who are in different countries? Whether or not the traditional rules of competency are applicable in cyberspace or we need new rules in this scope? This work attempts to determine the criteria for determining the COMPETENT COURT in the application for copyright infringement by comparative and analytical study of the above issue in several international and regional documents and Iranian law. With the examination of the various qualifications proposed in this dispute, it has been concluded that there is not a common rule of conflict resolution to be used in all cases of infringement of copyright in cyberspace, but the specific situation and circumstances of each case are crucial in determining the rule. Although in these cases, domicile of respondent has general jurisdiction, but there are some cases that the complainant has the right to choose a COMPETENT COURT from two or more COURTs under the laws and conventions (special jurisdiction). The COMPETENT COURT may also be agreed by the parties (agreemental jurisdiction). In some cases, a claim for copyright infringement in the cyberspace can also be made in a specific COURT under customary rules (exclusive jurisdiction).

The unique nature of the internet and contracts concluded in virtual space have the remarkable effects in many of traditional principles and concepts of COURTs jurisdiction. One of these contracts is the electronic contracts of business to consumer (B2C) in which the consumer is primarily considered as the weaker party of the contract. Hence, it needs a protective mechanism. One of the protective aspects of the consumer is to determine a COMPETENT COURT and to pay attention to "a special procedure in lawsuits of electronic contracts". By way of determining such COURT, the presentation of an analysis based on theory of "Activity-Orientation" is the final outcome which is offered to the Iranian legislator as an approach.

One of the complicated debates in international commercial arbitration law is the matter of judicial competence for examination of challenge over arbitral awards and annulment proceedings. In the first part of this essay, I have tried to clarify that judicial competence on annulment proceedings is limited to national or domestic arbitral awards and then, to give main criteria for determination of nationality of arbitral awards based on their popularity and acceptance in the world. Incompatibility among the said criteria, specially the two main criteria i.e. criterion of place of issuance of the award and criterion of law of procedure, have caused undesirable effects like positive and negative conflict of jurisdictions over challenge proceedings. This problem and relative solutions for decreasing the indicated effects are studied in the second part of the essay.

In the past, the protection of copyright was minimal, and the infringement of the copyright was regarded only as a tort. Conflict of law issues were resolved solely by the territorial approach to intellectual property rights and in accordance with the principle of national treatment. With the advent of the Internet, the availability and use of copyright were uncontrollably accelerated and facilitated, and the possibility of using cross-border copyright as well as the entry of the foreign element caused the complexity of these claims. The ubiquitous infringment of copy right is the result of broadcasting information on the internet and indeed in world that there is no solution for it in existing documents because of its novelty. The two fundamental issues of the governing law and the COMPETENT COURT in this article are aimed at responding to the efficiency or ineffectiveness of the common conflict of law system by studying the provisions of the Berne Convention as the most important document, the Brussels Convention and the ALI and the CLIP principles (as non-binding principles), and it was concluded that The traditional system of conflict of laws is not enough for this purpose and doesn’ t respond the copyright lawsuits and so we requires a special conflict of law system.

The emergence of the Internet severely affected the social life. Cyberspace, regardless of geographical constraints, has provided the possiblity of fast and affordable communication for all people around the world. The increase of international electronic contracts has caused the COURTs to confront the challenge of determining jurisdiction in cases involving such contracts. Traditional rules of private international law concerning elimination of conflict of laws are based on connecting factors which have territorial nature and are not easy to determine in cyberspace. The aim of this study is to investigate the possibility of applying the traditional rules of private international law to determine jurisdiction of COURTs in cases which one contract is concluded or executed via the internet. Given that the European Union and The United States are pioneer in e-commerce and solving cases which arise in this context, this study investigates the approach of these two legal systems in confronting with jurisdiction in cyberspace.

Most of judgements of the administrative COURT of justice in relation to the title of " garden" have been issued about the identifying a COMPETENT authority for its recognition. In this regard, after the enactment of the law on the reform of the law on the conservation and development of greenbelt in cities in 2009 and the formation of the "Article 7 commission", the COURT's inappropriate procedure in identifying the "article 12 commission of the land-urban law" as a COMPETENT authority for recognition the garden was refurbished. In contrast, and because of misinterpretations of the governing laws, one of the issues that have overlooked by the judges was the attention to characteristics of the "garden" and its nature. The present text deals with the COURT's different and sometimes divergent procedures on the above issues. Also, the nature of article 7 commission and its decisions to identify the COMPETENT authority to overseeing them, as well as the decision-making authority for changing the use of gardens, are other issues besides identifying the COMPETENT authority to identify the garden, that form the main concern of this article.

In non-contractual obligations, it is doubtful whether or not an Iranian COURT which is located at the plaintiff’s domicile is COMPETENT to proceed with the defendant having no domicile, residence or immovable property in Iran. In particular, this is the case when the event has not been occurred in Iran. In the European Union, upon enacting a regulation referred to as Rome II, the applicable law to non-contractual obligations has been specified. However this regulation is silent on the determination of the COMPETENT COURT. The Brussels I Convention, along with the jurisdiction of defendant’s domicile venue, considers the following venues eligible: the accident venue, the insurer’s domicile venue and the consumer’s domicile venue. In the Iranian law, the question arises as to whether in cases that the defendant has no domicile, residence and/or immovable property, the COURT of the plaintiff’s domicile will be COMPETENT to consider the case or the COURT of the place of occurring loss and/ or the COURT of the place of accident will also be COMPETENT. This article reviews the criteria for determining the COMPETENT COURT from the perspective of private international law relating to non-contractual obligations in the Iranian and European law. Finally, we discuss the ineffectiveness of Article 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 971 of the Civil Code in addressing the cases related to the recent question.

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.