ناصر کاتوزیان

Ownership and freedom are two essential rights and of value to human beings. By contrast to preliminary reviews، the link between these two values is very solid، and they have a reciprocal relation. Not only can they serve as the foundation of each other، but also in case of departing this equilibrium، each can have a negative effect on the other. The relationship between the two is the subject of study of this article. For purpose of conclusion، we should know that Freedom and ownership are two important rights، in which Law has the obligation to create equilibrium between them; as such not only there will be no conflict between them، in fact they will complement and support each other، and also each shall maximize the other.

Good faith is a flexible and subjective phrase. It is used in a variety of contexts and its meaning varies in these contexts. In ownership, possession in good faith means possession of property by a person who in good faith does not know that the property's ownership is disputed. Possessor believes actually and reasonably himself or herself to be the lawful occupant, otherwise he is in bad faith and dishonesty of belief or purpose. Good faith extends into the conclusion and performance of a contract. Good faith defines in contract as just and honest conduct which should be expected of both parties in their dealing. Good faith requires each party to stay fair and honest in their negotiations and while the contract is concluded. Good faith performance of a contract emphasizes faithfulness to an agreed common purpose and it excludes bad faith.

The principle of freedom of contract is conceptually narrower than the will theory and as such it does not deny the state the right to put limits on contracts between individuals. On this ground some measures have been taking to strike a balance between the interests of the consumers and the producers. Among these measures are the compulsory sales to consumers in the case law and on the basis of public order. This particularly true in the case of producer having monopoly over one product which is needed by the public order. The supply of such a product is then considered as public good and subject to public order. In this lecture we seek to examine such a trend in the case law in Iran.

La directive n° 2004/35 du 21 avril 2004, sur la responsabilité environnementale en ce qui concerne la prévention et la réparation des dommages environnementaux qui a été définitivement adoptée le 31 mars 2004. La directive établit un cadre de responsabilité environnementale fondé sur le principe du «pollueur-payeur», en vue de prévenir et de réparer les dommages environnementaux. d’atteinte à l’environnement limitativement considéré en trois des domaines qui le compose: - les espèces et habitats naturels protégés.  les eaux, entendues au sens large de la directive n° 2000/60 du 23 octobre 2000, établissant un cadre pour une politique communautaire dans le domaine de l’eau; - les sols contaminés du fait de l’introduction directe ou indirecte de substances, préparations, organismes ou micro-organimes. La directive canalise la responsabilité environnementale sur la personne de l’exploitant. l’annexe III de la directive vise à identifier les activités posant des risques pour l’environnement, fussent-ils seulement potentiels, d’une nature telle qu’ils justifient que la responsabilité des exploitants concernés puisse être engagée indépendamment du caractère fautif ou négligent de l’acte ou omission qui est à l’origine du dommage; il s’agit donc d’un régime de responsabilité objective. Le second régime de responsabilité diffère du premier à trois points de vue: les exploitants concernés, la nature de la responsabilité et la catégorie de dommage environnemental couverte. Seuls les exploitants des activités professionnelles autres que celles relevant de l’annexe III sont en effet assujettis à ce second régime, lequel ne jouera que pour autant que l’exploitant soit fautif ou négligent et uniquement lorsque la menace imminente ou le dommage survenu concerne les espèces et habitats naturels protégés.

Since ancient times, government’s responsibility to safe Guard and the public health is known among the duties of state. The achievement of this important task requires legislative interventions. Legislation is a maine key element of controlling the dangerous products.Tobacco control respresents a very clear example of how law can be used to ensure public healt. For hundred of years governments and other palicymakers have enacted various law to control tobacco use. That is because, from several research, and official reports, nicotine is addictive and cause many diseases, like cancer of toungue. Neverselesse, the war against tobacco is not enough efficient and has no desirable result, mainely because of economic observations and influence of producers.So, it is very helpful to study the various method of legislative control of producers and users of cigarette in different countries and the efficiency of each one.