Litigation and its forms (which is "the right to sue" and the "the right to appeal against decisions) is one of the most important rights granted to individuals; these rights may be abused. For this reason, the issue of "abuse of the right to sue" and "abuse of the right to appeal against decisions" is raised. This study seeks to analyze the approach of the Iranian and French legal systems regarding the abuse of the above rights. The results of this study indicate that: The law of Iran on the prohibition of "abuse of the right to sue", provides a guarantee of enforcement, but does not say anything about "abuse of the right to appeal against decisions." French law prohibits the abuse of both rights and guarantees effective enforcement.

The problem of this article is to examine the distinction between a "true" appeal and a "mentally regarded" appeal. This research has made a distinction between these two types of appeals using a descriptive-analytical method. The findings of this research show that real and mentally regarded appeals differ from each other in at least two main ways: 1) In real appeals, the originator and motivator of the "intermediary" is God Almighty,While in mentally regarded one, the originator and motivator of the "intermediary" is the human being. 2. In the true appeal, in the very reference to the intermediary, the concept of closeness is not included in the closed being, and both believer and unbeliever enjoy such appeals,while in the mentally regarded, in the very reference to the intermediary, the concept of closeness has been included in the closed being. The most important result of the research is: "to make distinction between a true appeal and a mentally regarded appeal". This distinction, while explaining the meaning and concept of appeal, will also solve some of the problems caused by the confusion of these two types of appeal.

No one denies the importance of taxes and citizens’ obligation to pay them. In essence, the regular and transparent payment of taxes by citizens is one of the pillar components of sustainable development for any country. At the same time, there might be cases of dispute between the taxpayers and the tax authority regarding the amount or manner of audit, computation and collection of taxes. The principle “ rule of law” requires that such disputes are settled through an impartial legal framework whereby minimum principles and standards are observed both formally and substantially. This paper aims at discussing the status of the contradiction principle and the right to appeal in Iran’ s tax dispute settlement system. The questions to be addressed are: How are principles pertaining to contradictions and the right of appeal is enforced in the Iranian tax proceedings? Are there any assumptions where these principles are totally or partially violated in the process of tax dispute settlement? The paper presumes that contradiction principle (giving equal chances for statement and defense to all parties of a claim), right to appeal and other principles of fair trial are applicable in tax proceedings, too and that the ignorance of any of these principles shall result in a reverse of the judgment or its reconsideration by the Supreme Tax Council or by Administrative Tribunal.

The possibility of appeal and appellate supervision is one of the important and decisive cases in the fate of lawsuits, including family lawsuits, related to the termination of marriage. these decisions include decree of divorce, obligation to divorce, annulment of marriage contract, annulment of marriage and decisions on the subject of the expiration or forgiveness period of the temporary marriage. the decree of divorce, in the general concept of the principle of divorce, includes the obligation to divorce and other cases. the wording of the Civil Procedure Law regarding the appeal of divorce creates ambiguity in the ability to appeal judgments other than the principle of divorce. the result of this ambiguity is the creation of differences in the procedure of the courts and the response to that is the issuance of a supreme court decision (as a unified judicial precedent). It was based on the generalization of the aforementioned law to all divorce cases. in the family protection law, the decision to compel divorce is sometimes called a divorce decree. family support law approved after the supreme court decision as a unified judicial precedent regarding the certificate of impossibility of compromise, it creates a concept inconsistent with the judgment of the court and the possibility of appellate supervision from certificate of the impossibility of compromise faces doubts and decisions contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court as a single judicial record have some kind of legal support. according to the concept of the relevant articles, the certificate of impossibility of compromise can be appeal, but it is non-impossibility to appellate supervision. the decree of void and termination of marriage can be appealed due to the financial nature and if it is related to their substance, it can be appealed to the supreme court.

The Code of Civil Procedure has stated the waiver of the right of appeal (Article 333) and the waiver of the right of appeal to the Supreme Court (paragraph 4 of Article 369), but has remained silent on the possibility of dismissal of  the protest and third party objection. The necessity, form and nature of the agreement on the dismissal of the right to appeal as well as the time and scope of the dismissal of the appeal are among the issues that need to be analyzed and examined. The investigation of the case shows that the right to protest and retrial should also be considered dismissible, unless the defendant requests a retrial on the basis of fraud or forgery of the document which the judgment is based.. However, the waiver of the right of third party to object is not acceptable, because it entails the abolition of the fundamental right to sue. Dismissal of the complaint, except in the protest, must be agreed upon by the parties and in any case in writing, and it is not necessary that the agreement be in the form of a civil contract.

The best judges might also have mistakes in their rulings deliberately or erroneously. Perhaps the only way to control and review court rulings without interfering in trials and proceedings is to grant the appeal right by statutes to the incurred from the rulings. Therefore, in addition to be a reason for reviewing the rulings and preventing the violations of the rights, provision of this right is also useful for providing judicial guarantees and encouraging the judges to care about their rulings. If the judges know that their rulings reviewed by other judges, they will be more careful in their decision-makings and consequently, the ground for a fair trial will be provided.

One of the most important concerns over judicial systems around the world is guaranteeing the conformity of definitive judgments with law and legal principles. In French law, despite the fact that the appeal in Cassation Court (pourvoi en cassation) is widely accepted, the jurisprudence does not stop in this phase; in all cases where ordinary or extra-ordinary ways of appeal are abolished by the law, in cases of the ultra virus actions of the judicial authorities, the parties could resort to autonomic appeal. This appeal is created by the French jurisprudence. Taking into account the restricted domain of appeal in the Supreme Court in Iranian Law, especially in civil matters, it is necessary to consider the mechanism of other legal systems in respect of controlling the correspondence of definitive judgments with law and legal principles. For there reasons, the domain and conditions of autonomic nullity-appeal in French Law have been studied in this Article.

Introduction: Arbitration has a contractual nature and is subject to the sovereignty of the will of the parties, but in some cases, the legislator imposed the referral of claims to arbitration on the will of the parties and caused the contractual nature of the arbitration clause to disappear or be limited. By doing this, he has placed the arbitration outside the will of the parties. This issue causes some moral conflicts in the discussion of compulsory arbitration. Therefore, this research has been done with the purpose of examining the position of compulsory arbitration in Iran's legal system and the ethical challenges in it with a descriptive-analytical approach. Material and Methods: The research was a review method, in order to achieve the goal of the research, in addition to electronic education books and virtual education in this field, articles related to the research keywords from 2004 to 2022 from the databases of Civilica, Magiran, Sid, Researchgate, Science direct, was reviewed Conclusion: Based on the findings of the research, it can be concluded that compulsory arbitration in Iran has ethical challenges in the field of implementation and interpretation, the most important of which is the issue of the right to action and judicial justice. In the context of ambiguities in mandatory arbitration, even if the method of arbitration becomes ambiguous, the arbitrator has the duty to find out the will of the legislator with the principles and rules of interpretation, which creates a moral conflict for the arbitrator.