The necessity of separating the rules and examples of usurpation and in the ruling of usurpation from the perspective of Imami jurisprudence and civil law of Iran
The articles on "usurpation" and "on the rule of usurpation" are among the articles of jurisprudential and legal planners. The apparent consideration of "usurping possessions" with "in the rule of usurpation" indicates the difference between the concept and the conformity of the rulings;However, it is obvious that some instances of usurpation, with emphasis on the jurisprudential rule of "al-usurpation and taking away the state of affairs", especially in government titles (Article 555 of the Penal Code) have a criminal and punitive description, if "in the ruling of usurpation" Some cases, such as being bound by a corrupt contract (Article 366 BC), do not have a criminal description; Conversely, refusing to refuse a trust to the owner (in the ruling of usurpation, Article 674 of the Penal Code) has a criminal description,but the usurpation of personal property has no criminal description.Therefore, by explaining the conflicts, it can not be said that the latter is in the first sentence, but they are institutions with conflicting concepts and sentences. On the other hand, the theory of "in the sentence of usurpation", although it seems strong, is not comprehensive and can not be a correct theory. As a result, it can be stated that the establishment of the institution "as a usurpation" is not relevant in Iranian jurisprudence and law. The researcher seeks to eliminate the heterogeneity in concept and multiplicity of examples by descriptive-analytical method of finding a solution and establishing the institution of "recourse to previous clearance seizures", which is a new institution. Provide strong through follow-up suggestions.
- حق عضویت دریافتی صرف حمایت از نشریات عضو و نگهداری، تکمیل و توسعه مگیران میشود.
- پرداخت حق اشتراک و دانلود مقالات اجازه بازنشر آن در سایر رسانههای چاپی و دیجیتال را به کاربر نمیدهد.