نشریه رای : مطالعات آرای قضایی
سال دهم شماره 4 (پیاپی 37، زمستان 1400)

The claim of any legal claim is the most basic element of it and therefore it is necessary to be careful in determining the claim, because it is necessary to determine the type of claim in terms of financial or non-financial and its price in financial claims, in terms of court costs, jurisdiction The review authorities and the ability to appeal or appeal the sentence are very important. In cases where multiple claims are brought in one legal petition, the judge will separate the different claims that are filed in one legal petition or in other ways in one case and will consider each one separately and if it has jurisdiction. The question arises as to when the separation of claims should take place and what the consequences of the separation of claims of a single origin will be. This article examines an opinion in which the claim for the obligation to prepare an official document from another claim, claiming damages for delay in fulfillment of the obligation (contractual obligation), arguing that the second claim is not related to immovable property and about the violation The person is a contractual obligation, separated from other demands, and according to its calendar to less than two hundred million rials, the decision of disqualification has been issued and it is considered within the competence of the Dispute Resolution Council. Separation of claims, if both claims have a contractual origin, will be processed in several branches and the proceedings will be delayed, which is not in line with the components of economic analysis.

Nowadays, the examination of evidence in illegal ways by criminal courts and judicial officers is recognized as an unauthorized way of convicting members of society and as a common idea based on different interests and corruptions, which are often labeled as necessity and urgency.It can be seen that the judiciary, when prosecuting criminal cases or convicting convicted defendants, issues verdicts that have legal forms and show expediency.In this regard, the principle of employing an illegitimate means to achieve a healthy goal with examples such as false claims under the banner of Apparent transactionsof officers or their labeling and acceptance by judicial officials, is accused of judicial and disciplinary extremism.Therefore, the correct use of illegal tools in their place is an important issue that should be considered by government institutions, including the judiciary and law enforcement, in order to achieve appropriate results and prevent the formation of unacceptable results, such as deviations from legal norms.Therefore, the absolute acceptance of the study of evidence illegally by judges or judicial officers is not without problems, because such an action violates the competent law and destroys true justice, and overshadows the just punishment of the offender and the prevention of the crime and the manner of punishment. puts.Therefore, with a proper understanding of the rules and conditions of the principle of using illegal means, we must evaluate the approach based on the conditional acceptance of obtaining evidence through illegitimate methods.

AbstractAt the end of 2009, at the same time with the outbreak of coronary heart disease and with the announced goal of synergistic measures and convergence of devices to control the disease and its consequences, the National Headquarters for Corona Disease was established by the Supreme National Security Council. In the field of health, culture, society and economy, pay and approve and implement the necessary decisions; But in some cases it is out of its competence. One of these cases is Resolution 33 of this headquarters, which for various reasons contradicts the Constitution, ordinary laws, contradicts the Sharia, goes beyond the limits of jurisdiction and violates the rights of citizens (according to the reason for requesting annulment), its annulment in the requested Court of Justice. it placed. However, in the end, based on Article 85 of the Law on the Organization and Procedure of the Court of Administrative Justice, the petition was rejected; Arguing that the approvals of the headquarters are the approvals of the Supreme National Security Council and are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. In this article, we will review the provisions of this request and review the issued appointment.

Branch four of the Criminal Court Lorestan, Iran, in the lawsuit no. 140036390000625830, has ordered qisas for a person who was attacked by individuals and committed the murder of one of the attackers in his defense. There are several reasons to address this lawsuit: First, it is related to the loss of human life, and in case of an incorrect verdict, it is not possible to compensate the damages. Second, there are many similar cases in the courts of justice in Iran, and their review and investigation can be effective in other cases as well. Third, this lawsuit has significant underlying problems, which show that this lawsuit lacks legal and even jurisprudential support, since the murderer was basically in a position of self-defense, and if his transgression in the defense situation is proven, the quasi-premeditated murder will be proven, not the premeditated murder. It also has several formal problems, including the lack of a case file for the accused, the lack of documents related to the reconstruction of the crime scene, the lack of investigation by witnesses and informants, and so on. This number of problems even in much less important files cannot be ignored.

After criminalizing fraud in the former General Penal Code adopted in 1925, the legislator tried to eliminate these gaps by enacting special laws or declaring cases in other laws as fraud due to legal gaps in some cases. Among these laws is one that punishes those who demonstrate conspiracy to take another’s property. The lawmakers classified the conspirators’ actions as fraud and linked the offense to Article 238 of the previous General Penal Code. Despite the principle of the right to sue for all following Article 34 of the constitution, determining the punishment, its effects, and conditions, as well as the persons subject to the law subject to Article 1 of that law, has been a difficult task, according to the next version of the General Penal Code. For over a century, there has been contention amongst judges and jurists, which has resulted in varying interpretations of the law and divergent perspectives. Thereby, considering this matter, and with a particular emphasis on the judicial authority’s verdict, it was attempted in this article to provide solutions to resolve the issue and put an end to the disagreement by criticizing and reviewing it.

In our country's legislative criminal policy, the legislature has permitted the possibility of a limited change and adjustment of the degree of crimes in the criminal proceedings, which are often influenced by the directions of commutation or aggravation of the punishment. However, this change in the degree of crimes during the proceedings, which may occur for a variety of reasons, has caused challenges and disagreements in the judicial procedures of the courts and prosecutors of the country. Because changing the degree of crimes can bring to mind the change in the jurisdiction of the courts, the most obvious example of that is the question of determining and changing the jurisdiction of criminal courts one and two with the occurrence of changing the degree of crimes. Therefore, changing the degree of crimes is a matter that requires investigation and investigation, and consequently marks a new type of discrepancy in jurisdiction among criminal courts one and two. In this paper, we have tried to investigate the performance and reaction of judicial procedures when changes in the degree of attribution crimes occur during the proceedings and its effect on the jurisdiction of the courts. In fact, in this scientific exploration, the criteria for jurisdiction, the legal punishment, i.e., the amount of punishment specified under the law, have been considered and proved, and not the judicial punishment that has been changed due to commutation or intensification.