فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق خصوصی
پیاپی 41 (زمستان 1401)

The subject matter of the claim form is determined by the claims of the parties in the claim form and the defense bills, so the scope of the court in the proceedings will be determined. However, among the elements raised by the parties, there are facts that neither of them has explicitly cited in order to benefit from its legal effects. Moreover, the judge was able to legitimately inform them because it arises from the more general claims of the parties or the documents presented in the case file. These are called Adventitious facts. The question is; “Is it possible for the court to deal with these facts?” Examining the various dimensions of the case shows that accepting the judge's ability to identify these facts in order to benefit from them is accompanied by ambiguities. While the judge's ability to identify and benefit from Adventitious facts is not in dispute in France, this paper attempts to address these ambiguities by focusing on French law. It seems that in Iranian legal system- despite of the lack of a comprehensive legal doctrine in this area- traces of Adventitious facts can be seen in the rulings issued by the courts.

trade secrets law protect all types of information and innovations without considering the need for a specific quality such as the originality or novelty of the information and without any prior review. This protection, without granting exclusive rights to the owner of the secrets, is done only against three actions, namely improper disclosure, possession and use. The subject of this article is to study the limits of protection of secrets against improper disclosure: What is meant by improper disclosure and how and by what criteria can a distinction be made between proper and improper disclosure? To this end, by studying and inferring into the laws and jurisprudence of different countries, especially the EU directive on trade secrets (2016) and US law, first, different hypotheses of disclosure of trade secrets, are categorized in five categories of disclosure to competitors, mandatory disclosures, disclosure to Foreign states, disclosure to the public and disclosing as a Whistleblower. then the criteria and conditions for recognizing proper and improper disclosures are explained separately in each case. Criteria that, if adhered to, could protect the public policy and the private interests in a balanced way.

In Iranian legal system, several acts have been enacted on the liability of foreign state for violating international law. Some of these acts have been enacted in order to protect the rights of the Iranian people and diplomatic support, and others in order to make counter measure against violation of immunity from jurisdiction and enforcement ‎by a foreign state, as well as to determine the competent court to file lawsuits and similar issues. In this study, Iran's legislative performance in the mentioned issues with an analytical approach, in order to identify Iran's legal capacity regarding the responsibility of the foreign state is examined and then the gaps in the mentioned laws are discussed. A study of the various acts in this field shows that these acts are often written without proper notice to sufficient accuracy, expert opinions and principles of legislation. Therefore, it is needed to consolidate these acts, which mainly have the same subjects, into a coherent act with sufficient scrutiny in writing articles, considering international law, and without mere quick reactionary approach to foreign state’s measures.

The legal status of intellectual things has three different time periods from the time of creation to the beginning of the period of protection and after that. The status of intellectual things in terms of property from the time of creation until they fall under the protective umbrella of intellectual property rights and after the expiration of the protection period, as well as what economic rights have intellectual things outside the scope of intellectual property rights, is the subject of this article.  To answer this question, with a descriptive-analytical method and based on library studies, the legal status of intellectual things was investigated in two periods before and after the protection and the effect of real and contractual monopoly on mentioned things and concluded that things As long as they are under the customary dominion of the creator, are considered property and belong to the creator, and after the period of protection, they are not in the public ownership of the society of a country but are considered a part of the common heritage of humanity, that is not limited to the territorial borders of countries, and no private,  governmental, or public persons have the right to own and create a monopoly whether real, legal, or contractual over it.

Option of condition, the subject of Article 399 of Civil Law is in the cases that for each of the purchaser or customer or both of them or third person is given authority of  termination of transaction in the determined term and if this condition  is being without term, based on Article 401 of Civil Law, its execution guaranty is invalidity of condition and contract. In some of the contracts , it is inserted that if this contract after agreeing  and signing to any reason, each of the parties cancel the contract,  an amount as loss is paid, regard validity of authenticity or voiding of such condition between Doctrine and jurisprudence,  there is  subjective of belief and procedure that in this case, it  seems unlimited option of condition has not been determined but, it has been mentioned and if cancellation to any reason, this rate of loss is obtained by the parties and the mentioning to the termination is limited to legal options or contractual option. Also, in the cases that the parties make the contract of option of conditions for their life period or third person, there is disagreement and Civil law hasn’t made an explicit sentence in this regard that in this paper, additional to analysis of viewpoint of opponents and supporters, the preferred opinion will be discussed proportional to legal and jurisprudential principles and judgmental procedure.

The supervisory board subject to Article 6 of the Real Estate Registration Law, as the authority for dealing with all disputes and registration errors, lacks the guarantees of a fair hearing, and the implementation of the current method is an insistence on inadequacies that do not contribute to the judicial situation of the country and the policy of decriminalization. . It is possible to take a step towards speeding up and facilitating the proceedings with minor reforms such as the expansion of delegation of authority, the formation of numerous and specialized branches, the revision of executive regulations and registration directives, but inadequacies such as the weakness of this quasi-judicial authority's entry into the nature Registration disputes and referral to judicial authorities (in cases where there is a threat of violation of acquired rights of individuals) are still standing. The first question of the article is why the supervisory board should deal with the errors and discrepancies in the registration. And in this regard, what are the justifications for the need for quasi-judicial authorities to enter into the nature of disputes? Secondly, assuming that the supervisory board (with its current status) does not have the ability to deal substantively with errors and registration disputes, what reforms and tools should be provided to the boards for the development of alternative dispute resolution methods?

One of the essential objectives of international arbitration is to obtain fair and neutral procedures without being bound by the formalities and technicalities of procedural rules applicable in national courts. This aim is affirmed by articles 18 and 19 of Iran International Commercial Arbitration Act, approved in 1376, and sections 33 and 34 of England Arbitration 1996 Act. In such a private dispute resolution mechanism, the parties’ autonomy is significantly accepted in the law governing the rules of arbitral proceedings. Furthermore, by considering the two basic principles (parties’ rights must be heard and treated equally), arbitrators have a wide range of initiative in determining the rules of proceedings. Therefore, the idea of neutrality of the arbitral seat is considerable and acceptable in the arbitral proceedings. Yet, the question that arises is to what extent the neutrality of the arbitral seat is acceptable in evidence. According to the international arbitration acts reviewed in this essay, the procedural flexibility, namely, the neutrality of the seat of arbitration is allowed to the extent that it does not contradict with the fundamental requirements of evidence.