فصلنامه حقوق اسلامی
سال بیستم شماره 2 (پیاپی 77، تابستان 1402)

The nature of the judiciary requires the issuance of untrue and harmful verdicts, which are mostly unintentional and due to the judge's error, and on the other hand, according to special provisions, such as Article 171 of the Constitution of the Republic of Iran and general rules such as Damage is a matter of course. However, the ambiguity in this article, which has been overlooked in legal proceedings, is this; If the injured party intends to file a lawsuit due to a wrong judicial decision and seeks compensation, in which court should he file a lawsuit and which court has the inherent jurisdiction to hear this matter ?and what is the nature of the lawsuit against the judge? Is the lawsuit merely a civil liability with the compensation as its purpose, or one of the unusual ways of protesting the issued verdict? In this research, which is done by analyzing legal jurisprudential data, we state that the nature of the lawsuit against the judge varies according to the court, which has the nature of civil responsibility and sometimes a disciplinary one. On the other hand, although the lawsuit has two stages and first the Aggrieved must prove the judge's mistake or guilt in the disciplinary court of judges, in the next stage, the competent court to hear compensation is the general and revolutionary courts.

Imami jurists believe that the opening of ijtihad has various effects, one of which is the employment of many people in the field of ijtihad and ifta. Sometimes people who claim to be in the field of ijtihad and ifta may not actually have enough knowledge in this regard, and the fatwa issued by them will cause harm to individuals. It seems that one of the tools by which it is possible to control the above-mentioned possible matter is to install a "mufti guarantee" which itself has countless confirmations in the four sources and due to the distribution of resources scattered in the votes and The views of some jurists have been pointed out, albeit in a small way. Most of the executive mechanism of the mufti's guarantee has been taken.which itself has countless confirmations in the four sources and due to the distribution of resources scattered in the votes and The views of some jurists have been pointed out, albeit in a small way. Most of the executive mechanism of the mufti's guarantee has been taken.

A review of the patent formal conditions in all patent offices is done by a registry office employee, but a review of the threefold material conditions that include innovation, the pace of innovation, and the use of industry, in order to create high financial and technical costs, in countries Different in two systems are performed and announced. In the review system, the qualitative conditions are carefully examined and, on the contrary, the announcement system assumes that the material conditions are assumed, the costs of proving these conditions are passed through the protest of competitors and third parties to the post-registration stage. Considering that the selection of each of the two systems has had a great deal of impact on the four fields of inventors and investors, rivals, government (including the Registry and Court), as well as the community, by increasing or decreasing the motivation of the patent and presence in the competitive market today It guarantees the life of the trade market, and it is important to examine these works.

In The Romano-Germanic Legal System, according to consideration of the obligation between two people, it was believed that the obligor’s death extinguishes the obligation. After a time, depending on non-philosophical rationalism and with the help of subrogation theory, the problem was solved. This result was followed by Civil Cod. This article answers this question that if obligation extinguishes after the obligor’s death in jurisprudence view? On the Shia jurisprudence foundation, considering subrogation theory, can we say that obligation continues after the obligor’s death? It depends on considering the nature of obligation and also feasibility of the container of duty continuance after death. Obligation is not the constructional relationship between obligee and goods, but it is the constructional relationship between two people. The distinguishing standard is important. As the result of obligation, duty is for obligor and the right of demanding is for the obligee. According to the rules, by obligor’s death, the duty and also the container of the duty extinguish and it is impossible to transfer it to the heirs or take them as subrogates. The most of the legal relationships are possessory in jurisprudence and Shia jurisprudents did not use the theory of subrogation.

Following Iran's accession to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008, the Government of Iran has made international obligations to protect persons with disabilities, including the protection of the fertility of persons with disabilities.In the implementation of the mentioned obligations, ambiguities and questions are raised in the field of the scope of rights that can be protected in this field and its jurisprudential and legal bases.The present article examines the obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the reproductive rights of women with disabilities from the perspective of international law and domestic law with a comparative approach between international instruments and domestic law (such as the Law on the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Family Law). ) And Imami jurisprudence. The results indicate that marriage and fertility are recognized in international law as "right" for persons with disabilities, and that the government is obliged to provide the necessary means to exercise these rights; But the legislature has ruled in the Family Protection Act that where a genetic defect in a disabled parent leads to fetal harm.This is while the jurisprudential principles are based on the Islamic incentive policy regarding procreation and childbearing as the most important function of marriage, including people with disabilities, and according to their first sentence, the right to marry and start a family and consequently fertility are not prohibited, and can not Without justifiable reason and relying only on physical disorders and disabilities, the ruling to abolish the right of reproduction for people with disabilities was issued and in accordance with jurisprudential rules such as public interest, repelling potential harm and attention to causes and affairs in the creation, government intervention should be to promote Services, supervision and health for the general public and prohibit generation despite conditions.

Today, traditional perceptions of the rules that all aspects of the deal are identified at the moment of concluding is difficult and in some cases has been abandoned. On the other hand, the analysis in the sources of jurisprudence on the rule of uncertainty and all of rules it shows any ignorance in which probability is harmed is not effective in invalidating the contract and therefore it can be divided into effective and ineffective and from dividing uncertainty into effective and ineffective interpretations of Effective uncertainty's theory . Such a division is seen in Egyptian law, and it is considered ineffective in the case of today transactions that are not rational. This division is also justified in Imamiyya jurisprudence, because in jurisprudence, uncertainty means a danger and danger is a possibility of harm that the rational way avoids, Therefore, if the custom has not turned away from ignorance for social needs, but rather succeeded, such an ignorance is not considered to be a pride and does not affect the validity or invalidity of the contract. In the present study, library and digital resources have been gathered through the use of analytical method to discover the sentence and offer suggestions

share holders In order to complete the provisions of the articles of association or managing the details of their relations for protecting the rights of minority shareholders, control the companey and filling the legal gap in the companies act with respect to the rights attaching to their shares or personal rights as a share holder need to make a shareholder agreement. Due to the differences between the articles of association and the shareholder agreement, conflict between them is inevitable. If the shareholders' agreements are concluded by consensus or before the drafting of the articles of association, they are in accordance with the articles of association and the possibility of conflict is ruled out, and otherwise, the possible conflict between them can be considered.In order to examine the types of conflicts between these documents, the laws of different countries and the solutions provided by the legislator have been examined. In countries where there is no legal provision in this regard, the principle of freedom of contract and also the supremacy of the provisions of the company's articles of association prevail. In the next step, the relationship between the shareholding agreement and the mandatory laws related to the rights of companies in the judicial procedure and the laws of different legal systems has been examined The common feature in mandatory rules is to protect the rights of third parties and public order In Iranian law shareholder agreement is not regulated, so the mandatory rules regarding the rights of third parties and the company's statutes based on the freedom of contract should be obeyed Finallyin for resolving the ambiguities and legal gaps in this area, it is necessary to pay attention to the proposed articles about the nature, provisions and limits of the shareholding agreement in the amendment bill of the commercial law.