فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق خصوصی
پیاپی 37 (زمستان 1400)

Article 477 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the head of the judiciary and other officials in the judiciary to, If they find the vote illegal, re-examine it through the methods available to them in Sharia, and if they recognize opposition to the Shari'a, the head of the judiciary allows the retrial. In this case, the authority for the retrial will be one of the branches of the Supreme Court among the branches that have been assigned to this matter. Although this procedure is useful for overseeing the work of the courts and protecting rights, the procedure is complex, vague and opaque, and not accessible to all people. In addition, this method is contrary to the general rules of procedure, including the rule of respect for the right to defense, the rule of openness and transparency of the proceedings, the rule of procedure, the rule of court hierarchy, the rule of judges independence, the rule of equality of the people before the law. In this article, an attempt has been made to adapt this article to the rules of procedure and to review it

A vertical agreement is an agreement between two or more economic entities, each of which operates at different levels of the commercial market. These agreements may contain non-price excluding terms that are contrary to competition law. One of the controversial issues in this regard is whether competition law will recognize non-price restraints on vertical agreements as detrimental to competition or not only does it not constitute a barrier to competition but also finds it useful in competition. The findings of the comparative studies show that non-price restraints on US and EU competition law are among the suspected restraints, however, due to the different approaches in competition law policies, the scope of inclusion in both legal systems is different. U.S jurisprudence has recognized it as independent restrictive arrangements and analyzes it under the rule of rationality. There are general and individual exemptions in EU law for the assessment of vertical restraints, which are declared legitimate if they meet the stated criteria. In Iranian law, the competitive approach to these restraints is ambiguous due to the lack of an explicit position, however, by relying on the general rules of competition law and the interpretation of Articles 44 and 45 of Law on Implementation of General Policies of Principle (44) of Constitution, we can find examples of restrictive procedures and agreements that can be adapted to these restraints in US and EU competition law.

Complaining about the bankruptcy order is very important as it affects the rights of the interested parties. Before the issuance of unified judicial precedent No. 789 of the year 2019 of the General Board of the Supreme Court, there was doubt in the doctrine regarding the rule of special provisions of the Commercial Law to complain about the bankruptcy order, and in practice, there was no specific jurisprudence on how to invoke these articles. Although the subject of disagreement that created the aforementioned unanimity vote is the deadline for the third party's protest against the bankruptcy order, the said decision has only emphasized the validity of the articles of the Commercial Law, which inevitably, without studying the conflicting opinions, it is difficult to understand that the subject of the dispute is the binding of the third party's protest to the times specified in the law. In addition, the validity or invalidity of the provisions of this law was only one of the questions that were answered by issuing the above decision, however, there are still many other uncertainties regarding the interested parties and their inclusion in the parties inside or outside the lawsuit, whether absent or present in the preliminary hearing, the competent court, the origin, and deadline for filing a complaint against the bankruptcy order that have been tried in this article to give clear and convincing answers to the above questions and uncertainties.

Commercialization of space is happening much faster than expected. However, in space law, due to the share of the five treaties at the time of their conclusion and ratification, less attention has been paid to the commercial dimensions of space, so the logic of international relations requires that space regulations be developed in proportion to this growing trend. The non-conformity of regulations with the development of business activities poses challenges to the international community in adopting binding laws, which has led countries to regulate this area to meet the needs of domestic business actors. The development of commercial uses of space such as space tourism, space transportation, natural resource exploitation, the need for rules, updating and transparency of regulations, especially in areas such as property ownership (both real and intellectual), financing of space assets, and space mining is essential. The present article, while enumerating the basic needs and strategies in this field along with soft laws and the actions of various space law actors as one of the practical ways of regulating space activities, explains the existing regulations such as the space protocol to the Cape Town Convention on investment in the space industry.

One of the main functions of evidence law is to demonstrate the applicable standard of proof. In some kinds of evidence, it is not the case because fact finders make decisions according to the probative value of the evidence. In other pieces of evidence, there may be a need to find a standard. Lawyers trained in common law systems often enquire about the applicable standard of proof but in civil law countries and particularly Iranian law it depends on the discretion of judges and there are no clear rules. Instead, fact-finding standards are based on some general principles. In common-law systems, the standard of proof requires in ordinary civil cases the party who bears the burden of proof to establish by a "preponderance of the evidence". In some other civil cases "Clear and convincing" evidence is the main standard and in criminal cases "Beyond all reasonable doubt". By using normative considerations of efficiency, on the one hand, we may argue and propose that as the main principle, multiple standards are more efficient and will better align decision-making with fact-finding goals than using a unique standard and on the other hand, the preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence may be regarded as main standards.

Damages caused by natural disasters, which were formerly considered the result of the force majeure and were irreparable, are now compensable with the help of special legal systems. In addition to compensating the victims, these systems seek to prevent and reduce the effects of natural disasters in order to better manage the unpleasant effects of these Calamities. The Law on the «Establishment of the Public Insurance Fund of Natural Disasters» is an attempt to respond to public demand for security by the combination of compulsory insurance and governmental support to compensate for natural disasters. Nevertheless, it seems because of the long approval process and disregarding of the legal principles and practical experience of other countries, the legislature has failed to achieve its goals. The disordered basis, inadequate compensation, incomplete coverage, inattention to necessary financial resources, and the neglecting of preventive duties, in addition to not satisfying the victims, do not reduce governmental charges either. In this article, in addition to critical reviews of the Public Insurance an alternative solution to maintaining the insurance framework has been proposed to maintain the supervisory and supportive role of the government and effectively compensate for the adverse effects of natural disasters with the help of national solidarity.