BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The fundamental differences between the characteristics of the penal system and the civil one have led to the formation of clear boundaries between criminal and civil law; But the independence of these two branches of law is not absolute in all areas. Criminal claims for damages, which are formed in the shadow of the insurance system, have freed themselves from the monopoly of criminal rules and have maintained the tendency to be related to civil lawsuits for damages. Identifying this link requires an analysis of the purpose, nature and legislative and judicial approach to these claims, which is discussed in this research.METHODS: The method used in this research is descriptive-analytical method and the decisions in the judicial procedure have been used as study documents.FINDINGS: The penal system has established its main position through punishment and rehabilitation, but the idea of compensation has formed the main foundation of the civil system. The difference in the goals of these two systems has made the nature and special rules of criminal and civil lawsuits surround and influence the Judge's views and thoughts of each area to infer responsibility. However, accepting the absolute independence of civil and criminal compensation claims in the insurance system causes the breakdown of the order of the general rules of responsibility in this field of compensation. In addition to the ability to extract the purpose and nature of the unit from both types of litigation, finding the single effects and rulings to identify the insurer's liability in civil and criminal litigation is not against the rule. The resources of the trial and the guarantee of enforcement of both areas are also based on a single system, the main theory of which is the rapid and complete compensation of damages in a trial.CONCLUSION: Finding a unit purpose and nature in civil and criminal lawsuits in the insurance system provides the possibility of sharing rules and identifying a single basis for liability. The slight difference in the procedure of the civil and criminal authorities is because of their special spirit. The privacy of the nature of the lawsuit and the dominance of the purpose of compensation in both lawsuits lead to the inference of a Joint performance guarantee, and the theory of correlation between civil and criminal lawsuits in the insurance system replaces its fundamental distinction.

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.

The principle of access to the judiciary has come to the forefront of the new concepts in civil justice law, based on the principles of judicial democracy. The necessity of qualitative access to the judiciary makes it possible, on the basis of openness of the proceedings, the specialization of the judicial system and the development of various forms of dispute resolution, to the efficiency of the judicial system, and the need for little access to the judiciary on the basis of judicial review and compliance with the principle of proportionality Approach the standard judiciary. The principle of access to justice has three fundamental indicators. The principle of easy access, which includes access to the rules of procedure and objective access to the judicial system. The principle of quick access, which relies on digital economy and information and communication technology, is driven by electronic justice. The principle of cheap access also seeks to balance the cost of litigation in the macro perspective. There are three criteria and sub-indicators in this principle, which include the system of judicial assistance, both public and private, the law enforcement agency and the litigation insurance system. In the present paper, with a focus on the economics of justice and in comparative approaches, while recognizing the concept of the principle of cheap access from two legal and economic perspectives during scientific discussions, the following three sub-indicators will be discussed.

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.

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.

In an international connection which different factors of legal relation were spread in different countries, bringing of several actions with the same object in different countries court was completely probable. Each party with various reasons seeks litigation in a court providing their interest in better way. However, parallel litigation in it, the same object impose burdensome charges on litigant’s parties and judiciary systems and will cause an impediment for recognition of foreign judgments. Profound difference legal systems and direct relation of jurisdiction issue with sovereignty rights of states is an impediment for existence of uniform and worldwide resolution for settlement of parallel litigation problem. In some way, many of treaties and model laws merely have been satisfied with defective integration and cause akind of mediation between rules of major legal systems.  

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

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.