mohammad bafahm

The prohibition of abuse of rights in civil proceedings is well established, and individuals are not permitted to abuse their rights. Consequently, the prohibition of the abuse of rights is acknowledged as a legal principle in civil proceedings. However, a significant question arises: what constitutes the measure for the abuse of rights in civil proceedings? Specifically, what use of right is deemed illicit and classified as an abuse of right? This study aims at answering this question. The findings of this research indicate that according to the provision of Article 109 and Articles 133, 139, and 515 of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as the principles of abuse of rights in civil proceedings (purpose of proceedings, public order, and the role of ethics), the use of rights for motives other than pleading for justice and self-defense is deemed an abuse of rights and is illegal in the Iranian civil proceedings. In French law, according to an old legal maxim, malice in the exercise of a right results in the abuse of a right. The French Supreme Court has leant towards the fault theory over time. Scholars have argued that a single rule cannot be considered for the abuse of rights in civil proceedings.

Litigants have several rights in civil proceedings; these rights may be abused. In this regard, according to Article 40 of the Iran's Constitution and other principles (including the role of prohibiting the abuse of rights as one of the legal principles, paying attention to the purpose of civil proceedings, public order, and the role of ethics in law), the abuse of rights in civil proceedings is also prohibited. Prohibition of abuse of rights, like other legal rules, requires a sanction; according to this, it is necessary to identify the sanction of this legal principle, and the present research has been presented for this purpose. The results of this article indicate that the prohibition's sanction of the abuse of rights in civil proceedings is divided into two categories: general sanction (including "non-ordering of the effect on the abusive act" and "compensation") and special sanction (including "civil fine" and "criminal responsibility"). Each of these sanctions have specific nature, conditions and rules that are explained in this research.

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 litigants in civil proceedings have several rights. These rights may be abused. In Iran's Civil Procedure Law, the prohibition of the abuse of the right is not explicitly foreseen in the form of a legal article. Therefore, a fundamental question is raised that "is the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights accepted in civil proceedings or not?” Due to the silence of Iran's Civil Procedure Law, there may be doubts about the prohibition of abuse of rights in civil proceedings, but by using the library research method and citing other evidences and foundations (including legal principles, public order, ethics, proceedings’ purposes, etc.), this doubt will be resolved and it will be possible to prove the prohibition of abusing the right in civil proceedings. Although these foundations are also current in French law, the French legislator has not been satisfied with these foundations and has not remained silent regarding the prohibition of the abuse of the right, but has provided transparent and numerous legal articles to prohibit the abuse of the right.

One well-known theory of government civil liability is that the government is immune to civil liability in face of harmful government actions.  In Iranian law, Article 11 of the Civil Liability Law evokes this theory, and therefore, most jurists and legal writers, citing this article and considering the jurisprudential and legal basis of the authority of the Islamic ruler and the government, believe that legal system and jurisprudence Imamiyya has recognized the theory of state immunity. This article seeks to understand the approach of Iranian law to the responsibility of the government resulting from the exercise of sovereignty and to critique the well-known opinion of jurists and legal writers.  In addition to a new review of Article 11 of the Civil Liability Law, as well as an analysis of the relationship between Article 11 of the Civil Liability Law and the Civil Code, the limits of the government's civil liability for harmful acts of governance are explained.  The legality, exceptionality and illegality of government liability are examined.  The results of this article show that contrary to the popular opinion of jurists and legal writers, despite the initial appearance of Article 11 of the Civil Liability Law, the theory of government immunity and illegality of responsibility of the government cannot be attributed to Iranian law and Imami jurisprudence.

Iran's law on the Nationality of Iranian-born mothers has undergone some changes. By reviewing the process of amending the rules in this area we can get: The legislator has faced the dilemmaof the preference for "macroeconomic and governance interests" and "people's interests."So that in dealing with the issue of the Nationality of Iranian-born mothers, they first consider the absolute interests of their sovereignty, but due to the problems caused by this absolute and dogmatic approach by the legislator and even the government itself, it is considering paying attention to the interests of the people and the use of The legal and analytical method to deal with the issue of Nationality of these individuals. In this research, the weaknesses and strengths of various developments and efforts of the legislator and the government are explained and described. The results of this study indicate that both the initial dogmatic approach and the recent analytical efforts are facing extremism.

Transaction in Imamieh jurisprudence and Iran law has the unique status and place that is provided for the realization of the supremacy of will and liberty of contract. So for this it distinguishes Iran law from other countries. The legislator seem to have allowed persons by using their transactions to evade mandatory law, which has been anticipated about other transactions, while at the same time reaching out to their intended purposes. From this point of view the discussion "evade the net of law using transaction" is introduced. At first glance, the acceptance of this article is simply not possible, since it confronts the law with annulations doubt, but the Imamieh jurisprudence and the Iran law have accepted the principle. The present study examines and analyzes the applicability of the transaction as a means of evading the net of law and the scope of this feature.

Article 11 of civil liability code has recognized the civil liability of the state , but this article does not explain clearly the realization of usurpation liability . The present study seeks to answer this question that if the state have had illegal domination on others property whether it can realize the usurpation liability ? Some have hesitated about the possibility of usurpation liability to the state and they regarded the analogy of the state possessions with real persons possessions as an irrelevant analogy . In this writing after explaining and examining the basis of the view , in addition , analysis of court judgments we will conclude that there is the possibility of realization of usurpation liability to Illegitimate possessions of the state .

In different Codes, document is recognized as a valid evidence, but In the Article 1335 of the Civil Code it is used an expression that denys its validity as an independent evidence and limits its effect to be documentary and as introduction of knowledge of Judge; So the expression of the legislator in this Article about the document is inconsistent with other articles of that code as well as with articles of other code in this case and casts doubt on the validity of the document. In this research, tries to analisis this question and offer some ways for resolution of this inconsistent and to provie that the validity of document as an independent evidence is still undeniable.

Among state`s duties are constructing roads, water pipelines and the likes. In order to do these the state sometimes has to utilize private owners`lands. In this case it on the one hand needs for land and on the other hand ownership and right of the people is permanent, absolute and unique. In this research, we seek to investigate two questions: firstly what formalities have been considered by legislator to provide the needed lands? Secondly is there any possibility of civil liability (specially usurpation) for state if these formalities are not be observed? Some researchers have questioned the possibility and/or scope of liability for failure to observe formalities of eminent domain regulations by state. In this research after explaining these formalities and analysing courts judgments, we conclude that disregarding the legal formalities will amount to civil liability for state.