نشریه رای : مطالعات آرای قضایی
سال دهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 34، بهار 1400)

Uniform judicial precedent No. 794, issued on August 12, 2016, regarding the invalidity of the condition stated in the contract for granting bank facilities in excess of the profits of the Central Bank, according to which "... the condition contained in the contract for granting bank facilities in excess of interest announced by Central Bank is invalid ...". Subsequently, the Legal Department of the Judiciary was asked about the possibility of re-filing the settlement of the facility cases, as well as the cases against which a final verdict has been issued. Paragraph "a" of the Legal Department’s response, considering the invalidity of interest rate conditions in excess of the profits of the Central Bank, regardless of whether the facility file is closed or not, allows the lawsuit of annullment and the oblige the courts to refund the additional amount. And In paragraph (b), with reference to the withdrawal of the Uniform judicial precedent from the resolved cases and the cases in which a final verdict has been issued, as well as the necessity of public economic order, consider these two categories non-audible. The analysis of the theory indicates that, firstly, there is no ability to combine the sentence of paragraph A and B , and secondly, the relationship between the sentence and the argument in paragraph "A" to paragraph "B" is examined from the perspective of priority and rule over each other.  Finally, it seems to be possible to say that those who settled their facility case without going to court before the Uniform judicial precedent, as well as those whose claims for annulment of the interest rate condition in excess of the allowed profits were rejected by a final verdict can file an action to refund the additional amount

Respect for the private property of individuals, which is one of the important legal principles, sometimes comes into conflict with matters of governance that have a public aspect, so that there is a dispute over which one should be considered first?
The national interests and the public security of a country are one of these areas of dispute, which are considered vital and fundamental interests and are interests that are related to the existence of a state.
In addition to the interpretation of national security, terms such as national interests, vital interests, basic values   of a state or nation in political, economic and social fields are also used, all of which are important to understand. Knowing the concept and examples of national security to There are many reasons for this.
The present case that has been criticized regarding the ownership of telecommunication SIM cards is an example of the difference between the exercise of government sovereignty and the private ownership of individuals, which deals with the two.

According to paragraph B of Article 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in crimes requiring Die or Arsh, if the amount them is less than one tenth of the full Die, the verdict is final. The application of this article also includes crimes resulting from traffic accidents, and apparently the practice of most courts is inclined to consider related verdicts final; Recently, however, some courts, considering the provision of Article 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have considered the verdicts issued on these crimes to be appealable. In this article, while examining each of the two above-mentioned approach in the light of the case law and explaining their reasons, an attempt has been made to introduce a view in accordance with the laws and regulations. According to the results of this study, although in the current legal situation, due to the issuance of conflicting rulings, the issue needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court and the issuance of a unanimous ruling; However, the view of relative uncertainty proposed in this paper can also be considered when issuing a unanimous vote.

Following the misunderstanding and disagreements between courts regarding Article 593 of the IPC, general board of the supreme court, has issued a judgment called in 2/8/1396 according to which, if the injury incurred on the nose leads only to the fracture of the bone without damaging its other parts, and, if it can be cured and recovered without incurring any flaw and defects, it will cause one-tenth of full blood money. This judgment, due to not being a comprehensive judgment, could not solve the practical problems of the law courts. Furthermore, it can be criticized on two important grounds; 1. This judgment is not congruent with the text of the article 593 and negates this article in a way; 2. This judgment does not enjoy the support of any religious or even jurisprudential resources.

"Penalty" is a term that refers to the word "amount" mentioned in Article (230) of the Civil Code. In addition to giving the other party more reassurance regarding commitment to the contract, the parties to the contract cover all possible risks arising from breach of contract - whether the contract is not performed or its execution is delayed. The Supreme Court's uniform judicial precedent No. (805) on "Determining the penalty clause in Monetary Obligations" was approved by the Grand chamber in the last days of 1399 and immediately attracted the attention of lawyers and judges. The present article simultaneously critiques the "text" and "hypertext" of this uniform judicial precedent and finally concludes that the said opinion has no problems in terms of adhering to Article (230) of the Civil Code; However, citing Article (522) of the Code of Civil Procedure, It will not be true of all assumptions. Also in the hypertext review, the most important points about the effects and consequences of the uniform judicial precedent No 805 have been pointed out.

According to Article 106 of the Islamic Penal Code adopted in 1392, if the plaintiff does not file a criminal complaint within one year from the date of notification of the crime, his right to file a criminal complaint will be revoked. This rule is called "statute of complaint limitation" in criminal law. Statute of complaint limitation is one of the cases in which if the legal conditions are met, the investigating authority is not able to investigate the crime and regardless of the accuracy of the issue and without entering into the normative aspects as of the complaint, according to Article 13 of the Code of Criminal l Procedure, prosecution should be suspended. One of the pillars of the passage of time in a criminal complaint is the forgivability of the crime, which today, after enactment of the law "Reducing the punishment of imprisonment" and turning many unforgivable crimes into forgivable, has created differences in this regard. Now, it should be examined what are effects cause from the law on reducing the punishment of imprisonment on the statute of complaint limitation? Naturally, the interpretation in favor of the accused and retrospectivity of the laws of procedural criminal laws subject to Articles 10 and 11 of the Islamic Penal Code adopted in 1392 requires complaints that are referred to the courts after the law is passed and the date of the crime precedes the law be considered unforgivable and subject to the rule of statute of complaint limitation? In this regard, by reviewing the lawsuit issued by the Fourth Branch of the Public and Revolutionary Prosecutor's Office of the 14th District of Tehran, we will state the reasons and principles cited in the ruling and apply it to the subject under discussion.

Considering the cases before the courts, it is sometimes observed that there is a disagreement regarding the crime of demonstration and displaying a cold weapon; There are two different approach in this regard. Some believe that the abovementioned crime can be committed only in cases where the main purpose of the perpetrator is not achieved after that, while some believe that the crime In Article 617 of Islamic Penal Code, has been determined in an absolute manner and no exception is stated by the legislator in this regard, therefore the success or failure of the perpetrator in committing subsequent acts will not affect his punishment for committing the previous act. Considering the cases mentioned in this article and regardless of the correctness of the argument of regarding both opinions, it seems that the legislator in the draft of Article 617 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1375, significantly preserved public order and security have been considered. Therefore, according to the provisions of the article and the absence of exceptions by the legislator, it is important to realize that the offense is committed as soon as the perpetrators commit the above acts and the success of the perpetrators in inflicting further injuries on the plaintiff, will not affect the punishment of the offender for committing his previous acts. Consequently it can be said the orders issued by prosecutor and court is also considered incorrect.