به آیینی و به سامانی:
درستی - سازش - شادی
نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی دانشگاه رازی کرمانشاه، ایران
2 کارمند
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
Cassation does not terminate civil litigation; it returns the dispute to a court that must respect the effect of the supreme court’s decision while preserving responsibility for factual and legal reasoning. This article examines the foundations and legal nature of proceedings after cassation and defines the limits of independence and binding authority governing the court of referral in Iranian and French law. Using an analytical comparative method, it studies legislation, decisions, and doctrine in both systems. The findings show that proceedings after cassation are not a new action but a continuation of the original litigation within the scope reopened by cassation. In Iran, the possibility of an insistent judgment demonstrates that the court of referral retains relative interpretive independence after the first cassation, although that freedom is limited by the duty to remedy identified defects, respect the scope of cassation, and comply with the binding decision of the General Assembly. In France, the court of referral likewise exercises jurisdiction within the scope of cassation, while referral by the Plenary Assembly creates binding force regarding resolved points of law. The comparison therefore supports a model of initial judicial independence followed by final unifying authority, ensuring procedural coherence and lasting legal certainty.
کلیدواژهها English
