One of the issues that have received less attention in competition Litigation cases in our legal system is the Litigation Costs problem. The Competition Council has several tasks under "the Act of the execution of the General Policies of Article 44 of the Constitution"(2007), which requires a great deal of expense to perform optimally. At present, these Costs funded by the government. Although in the current state of the economy with considering other countries' approaches to financing these Costs, it is better to have at least some of the funding required by the council from other sources (such as receiving fees from private applicants).This study investigates the experiences of the US, Canada, Japan, Turkey, Denmark, the UK, Swiss, Ireland, South Africa, and Hong Kong legal systems in providing competition Litigation Costs.This article, in an analytical way, examines the justification for collecting Litigation Costs. Using the experience of other legal systems, it proposes a method (along with suggesting some articles) for allocation of Litigation Costs in the Iranian competition law and merger control regime to introduce a basis for reforming the law and optimizing Iran's competition system.

Field and Aims: Participating in a lawsuit involves Costs for the parties involved, including the court, the plaintiff and the defendant, and the legal system governing these Costs plays an important role in achieving civil justice. A comparative study of the provisions governing the provision and compensation of legal damages in the law of Iran and the United Kingdom better shows the shortcomings of the current Iranian laws in this field and is effective in correcting them. Method: The present research has been compiled in a descriptive-analytical manner with a comparative view of various documentary sources and studies in Iranian and British law. Findings and conclusion: The legislature, in order to guarantee possible damages, has made it possible for the plaintiff to cover his Costs, which, in view of the lack of a proper mechanism for forecasting the duration and quality of proceedings and estimating Costs, is a shortcoming compared to a similar institution in English law. There are some. Also, in order to compensate for definitive damages resulting from court Costs and other court damages, following the rule of "post-event Costs", damages have been transferred so that no damages remain without compensation. However, in Iranian law, unlike in the United Kingdom, not giving the judge the power to review the circumstances of the case and the litigants, in addition to the possibility of abuse of the institution of fictitious Litigation, also leaves the door open to abuse the right to sue and these shortcomings The unwillingness of the defendants to settle their dispute out of court and the abandonment of the principle of good faith in our judicial system is crystallized.

The increase in Litigation Costs, including court Costs, attorneys' fees, expert's fees, etc., has made access to justice challenging for some people. Therefore, potential claimants turn to existing tools, including third-party Litigation funding (TPLF), to cover these Costs. In TPLF, the third-party funder, who is not originally a party to the suit, finances the party’, s Litigation Costs in return for a share of the proceeds of the court verdict or settlement. Although the TPLF can meet the needs of some people to cover the Costs of Litigation, due to its infancy, it brings with it major challenges. Challenges have different dimensions and involve the judicial system as well as TPLF actors, including imposing a high rate of return on the funded party, funding frivolous lawsuits, control of Litigation by the third-party funder, Problems with disclosure, breach of confidentiality, and Inadequacy of capital and many other challenges. The Islamic Republic of Iran is no exception to these challenges. Allowing TPLF in the absence of regulatory bodies and governing regulations, in addition to creating the above fundamental challenges for the funded party and the other party to the dispute, can lead to increase problems in the judicial system.

Examining legal issues from an economic point of view, from an economic basis, and the conditions for claiming damages in arbitration and proceedings are important issues that need to be discussed. This article is descriptive and analytical and has investigated the mentioned subject by using the library method. The findings indicate that in arbitration, since it is not subject to the rules of civil procedure, it is not possible to claim the arbitration fee from the parties. Tasbib, on the other hand, is the most common type of civil liability and has various faces, one of which is the damage caused by refusing to pay the right, which also includes legal damages. Regarding Litigation damages in lawsuits before judicial authorities, the results show that Costs such as Litigation Costs, local research, expert fees and expenses are among Litigation damages. According to Article 515 of the Civil Procedure Law, the legislator, according to the general ruling, has placed the payment of damages on the defendant, whether he is the claimant or the conviction of the defendant, But on the other hand, in this case, due to the difficulty of ascertaining the intention of the plaintiff, the court can consider the principle of filing a false lawsuit in itself as evidence of the plaintiff's fault and knowledge. Of course, in the case where the claimant is seeking legal damages, it is not necessary to pay attention to the knowledge and intent of the defendant.

Today, the cost of Litigation is considered one of the serious obstacles to fair legal proceedings, and in some cases, it has prevented people from accessing civil justice. The annual increase in court Costs has made natural and legal persons less able to financially file lawsuits and exercise their rights traditionally by referring to the judiciary and Litigation. This is one of the major challenges for governments in achieving economic, social and civil justice. Because on the one hand, the government is facing an increase in the Costs of hardware and software Costs such as providing physical space and manpower for the judiciary. On the other hand, increasing lawsuits and the number of lawsuits need to resolve disputes through compromise and arbitration by Out-of-court institutions with a restorative justice approach are inevitable. In our country, Iran, the Dispute Resolution Council as a quasi-judicial institution with a conciliatory approach has played an effective role in reducing the cost of Litigation through a fair trial with a restorative justice approach. The present article in three speeches on the impact of restorative justice process and out-of-court institutions in reducing the trial Costs are paid.

Nowadays, the high Costs of Litigation (attorney's fees, expert's fees and court Costs, etc. ), known as a challenge to access to justice, have encouraged the parties to seek justice and truth by using a variety of methods, such as third-party Litigation funding to finance these Costs. In this way, the investor, who is not originally a party to the suit, finances the party’, s Litigation Costs in return for a share of the proceeds of the court verdict or settlement. Despite the benefits of third party Litigation funding mentioned by proponents, it is essential to identify the challenges that have involved the judiciary and players in this industry. The lack of proper regulation, overall increase in Litigation and particular frivolous suits, ideal rather than the reality of the "development of access to justice" as an important achievement of this entity, commoditization of justice, threat to the integrity of the judicial system, are the challenges of this entity in US and UK judicial system. In Iran, in addition to some of the above problems, authorizing the third-party Litigation funding before preparation may lead to increase in the problems in the justice system.

Rules of procedure, contrary to the substantive laws, are subject to change based on the requirements of time and place and the conditions of, and facilities available to, the society, and with the growth of technology. Therefore, despite that the Civil Procedure Code currently in effect has been enacted as early as in 2000, the legislature and consequently the judiciary, due to the inefficiency of that law, has sought to change it to reduce the excessive Costs of Litigation for individuals and the judiciary and minimize the procrastination. These efforts are crystallized in the Judicial Case Management system, resulting in the removal of redundant formalities from the proceedings and demonstrating itself in two main patterns, legal deregulation and material deregulation. Relying on modern technologies, the latter pattern consists in moving Litigations away from the traditional manpower-based form it used to have. Although a comprehensive law on e-Litigation has not yet been enacted, many of the rules of Litigation are now processed electronically. This article argues, in response to this situation, that what is becoming electronic is Litigations, the very right of individuals to access justice which is enshrined in the Iranian Constitution. Therefore, the major basis of the system should be the law, rather than the information technology and the abilities of engineers. The judiciary, in its very rapid advancing in the electronization of proceedings, has simply set aside some of the encumbering rules without replacing them by new lawmaking to address the problems in a more informed way. In some cases, instead of providing electronic services, this system decides in place of court judges, clerk or others involved in the lawsuits, neglects the application of the principles of proceedings that are meant to guarantee the acquired rights of individuals, and deviates from the purpose of assisting the proceedings. The litigants have no say whether the Litigation is to be performed electronically. The optional e-Litigation procedure is applied in the courts of France, and the choice of e-Litigation or electronic information exchange in that country must be based on the litigants’ consent, which they even have the right to retract. The Judicial Case Management system should thus be designed in such a way that neither ignores the regulations nor allows electronic services beyond the law to be introduced in the Litigation. In other words, since the Litigation is the core of this system, it is not justified to subject the procedures to inefficient changes without necessity. Accordingly, the most important challenges in e-Litigation will be criticized in this article and the effects of e-Litigation in providing a fair trial and securing the rights of litigants will be explored by examining relevant rules and procedures. The present article has been written in a descriptive-analytical method using library studies and a deductive method, to address the challenges and concerns in this field. The actual notification is one in which the form of notification is delivered to the addressee’s own, if the addressee is a natural person, or to a person authorized to obtain judicial documents, if the addressee is a legal entity, in accordance with procedural rules, by the officer legally responsible for the execution of the notification, in exchange for a receipt, and the process is reported to the court office. In electronic proceedings, according to Article 13 of the Regulations on the Use of Computer and Telecommunication Systems and Article 8 of the Regulations on the Provision of Electronic Judicial Services, electronic receipt of judicial papers to the addressee's account in the notification system is deemed as valid actual notification. The fact that the notification is seen by the addressee, along with its time and other details, is recorded and stored in the notification system, and will be given all the effects of the actual notification. Logging in to the notification system through the user account and viewing the papers in this way is considered a receipt. The present study seeks to answer the question whether, assuming the enactment of comprehensive rules of electronic procedure, all the stages of the proceedings could be implemented electronically, and how this method of Litigation could ensure the rights of litigants, in spite of all challenges it is faced with. The article argues, in response to this question, that what is becoming electronic is Litigations, the very right of individuals to access justice which is enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, the major basis of the system should be the law, rather than the information technology and the abilities of engineers. E-Litigation has undeniable benefits, such as the elimination of collusion between litigants and the notification officers, the capability of preparing and sending several records without going to court and, more importantly, the time efficiency. It has also several drawbacks for litigants as this practice is neither based on sufficient legal materials nor supported by enough technical infrastructure. It thus seems that it was the reduction of government Costs rather than securing the interests of litigants that has motivated the project. As far as litigants are concerned, they will be forced to have a mobile phone line and a phone with special capabilities, to be connected to the internet, and to constantly monitor the Judicial Electronic Registration system, which demands time and expense. On the other hand, individuals will be obliged to accept various undesirable effects and consequences of e-Litigation, such as going to the offices of the Judiciary to file lawsuits, to be confined in describing their claims to the precomposed clauses of electronic forms without much power to alter them, and at the same time to pay many different and additional Costs that were not necessary in non-electronic proceedings. Also, one cannot request an immediate hearing during holidays or in non-office hours, and may be notified by the system at times of the day that are outside office hours, so he will miss, in practice, the day of notification. Finally, considering that many citizens do not have the necessary facilities for e-Litigation and many other drawbacks of this electronic system, it not only does not guarantee the rights of individuals to a fair trial, but can also be considered a violation of their rights.

Introduction: Esthetic surgeries are among the commonest medical procedures in the world nowadays; and as statistics declare, there has been a rapid increase in the rate of rhinoplasty during the recent years. Hence, as the number of cosmetic surgeries rises, the increment in the number of physicians being sued is quite inevitable; either due to complication in rhinoplasties or even inability to fulfill the patients’ expectations. This article aims to clarify the aspects of causes leading to these legal claims.Materials and Methods: We designed a retrospective study according to the available files in the Iranian Organization for Forensic Medicine in which physicians were sued for the outcomes of rhinoplasty through the years 2004 to 2010. In addition, information on the patients’ demographic data, surgeons’ specialty and experience, and method of anesthesia were also collected.Results: 126 patients entered the study among which 77 (61%) were female and 49 (39%) male. Mean age was obtained as 26.9±7.7yrs. Up to 79.4% of patients had complaints concerning the cosmetic outcomes, 39.7% with respiratory and 4.8% with olfactory problems. The reason to sue the physician had a significant relationship with the patients’ age and sex, and also with the surgeons’ experience.Conclusion: There are multiple reasons impelling the patients to sue surgeons after rhinoplasty, some are related to physicians’ malpractice and some to the patients’ social and personal circumstances

Today, one of the most basic rights of every person, like his other rights such as the right to life, the right to marry, the right to sue or the right to defend other rights. Filing a lawsuit can be considered as claiming the violated or denied rights of individuals, which is done by submitting a lawsuit to the judiciary. The term Litigation has two meanings, one related to public law, which is recognized in Article 34 of the Constitution for all individuals and can be called the right to sue, and the other to the private rights of individuals, which can be called the right to litigate in a specific sense Called. In French law, judicial action for Litigation in the judiciary is called Litigation and in addition to the nature of the disputed right and in other words the nature of the legal relationship between person and object is the basis for objective Litigation and the nature of legal relationship between person and other is the basis of personal Litigation. Defendant, in order to prevent the formation of proceedings and dismissal of lawsuits or dismissal of the plaintiff's claim and to prevent conviction in the subject matter of the lawsuit, to appropriate and proportionate defense against the issues raised by the plaintiff in substantive issues, legal issues and use of evidence Giving formal issues deals with Litigation. Under American law, a petition must be in writing, unless a person is personally summoned and sued. In general, in the law of Iran, France and the United States, it is the responsibility of the litigants to determine the elements of the case and, consequently, its territory, and the judge has no involvement in this matter.

Background and Aim: There are rules for determining the effects of a contract. These rules have been uniformly established in different countries and regions of the world with different legal systems. One of the most important examples of contracts is the Litigation contract. The present article seeks to examine the economic contract while examining it. Materials and Methods: This research is of theoretical type and the research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of data collection is library and has been done by referring to documents, books and articles. Results: Litigation theory can be one of the tools used in legislative policy. The findings show that economics of law or economic analysis of law is from an economic perspective, this school is inspired by the consequentialist philosophy of justice and is considered a kind of scientific methodology, the logic of legal economics is the application of economic principles in the legal decision-making process. Contract economics also seeks contractual efficiency, allocation of transaction Costs, combating contractual opportunism, and allocation of contractual risks with the aim of ensuring social welfare and efficient contract execution. Ethical considerations: In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed. Conclusion: Economic analysis of the civil Litigation process is based on Litigation Costs in order to increase the efficiency and quality of Litigation and the rational optimization of Litigation Costs if an efficient Litigation is one of the guarantees of civil justice.