Comparative Civil Procedure

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract The approach to appealing civil judgments holds an exceptional place among methods of challenging verdicts, and the supreme nature of its reviewing authority, namely the Supreme Court, confirms this claim. This method is anticipated in the fifth section of the Civil Procedure Law and has been the subject of numerous unified precedent rulings. Appeal has long been a focus of attention. Nevertheless, the policymaking and philosophy of emergence behind it have rarely been examined, raising the following question: “What principles and objectives led to the introduction of civil judgment appeal to our national legal system?”

The present study takes an analytical-descriptive approach, initially investigates the background of appeal in Iranian law, analyzes its fundamental philosophy and constructive forces, and evaluates legal policymaking surrounding legal and judicial policies.

Ultimately, these evaluations suggest that appeal is not merely a method of challenging a verdict. It is rather a potent tool in the hands of legal and judicial policymakers for judicial oversight, establishing and maintaining justice, increasing public satisfaction, and establishing social order. This process spans from supervision to judicial governance and is continuously pursuing perfection and greater efficiency.

Abstract Comparative civil procedure is one of the most challenging areas of comparative law. These challenges are rooted in the sovereign, cultural, historical and political nature of this branch. Recognizing these challenges is the issue of this article and it is necessary to see why comparative civil procedure has not been as successful as other branches of comparative law. This article is written in a descriptive-analytical manner. Findings indicate that researchers are forced to oscillate between macro- and micro-comprehension approaches or meso-level analyses. There are challenges such as the dependence of procedural rules on socio-economic contexts, the difficulty of separating rules from cultural contexts, and the limitations in transferring legal institutions in this field. There are fundamental differences in the role and authority of judges, the way in which proceedings are conducted, and even the status of institutions such as juries. Transferring legal institutions to other systems faces serious political, organizational, and cultural obstacles. Successful institutions in one country are not transferable, regardless of the power structure and legal culture of the destination country. Despite the above challenges, the comparative study of civil procedure can have several benefits;

Abstract In French law, especially since 1964, according to the judgment of the supreme court, control of the applicable law the dispute in accordance with the French conflict rules was included among the conditions for the enforcement of foreign judgments, although this condition was gradually removed. In Iranian law, authors and judicial practice influenced by French law, despite not being specified in Article 169 of Civil Enforcement Law, believe that the foreign judgments, especially in matters of family law, can be recognized and enforced in Iran, if the applicable law has jurisdiction over the dispute according to the Iranian conflict of laws rules. This approach has had adverse effects, especially on the rights of Iranians abroad and places them in a dual legal situation. The findings of this research, which focuses on examining the documents of the proponents of this theory, shows that in the current legal situation, none of the provisions cited for issuing an order to enforce a foreign judgment, including Article 6 of Civil Code and paragraphs 3 and 7 of Article 169 of the Civil Enforcement Law does not imply the need to control the applicable law the dispute in accordance with the Iranian conflict resolution rules.

Abstract The new arbitration bill was drafted with the aim of creating extensive changes in the field of domestic arbitration and has proposed new approaches that, if approved, will replace the arbitration provisions in the Civil Procedure Code. This research seeks to examine the innovations and developments of the arbitration bill on the subject of arbitration agreements and to answer the question of whether the arbitration bill, if approved, can address the challenges and shortcomings existing in the Civil Procedure Code in the field of arbitration agreements. By examining the Arbitration Bill and comparing it with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in a descriptive and analytical manner, the most important innovations of the bill in this regard concern the issue of arbitrability, and especially the arbitrability of state and public property, the acceptance of party autonomy in the choice of law governing the arbitration agreement, the acceptance of the principle of jurisdiction over jurisdiction and the independence of the arbitration clause, and it has largely succeeded in eliminating the shortcomings and ambiguities of the Civil Procedure Code in the field of domestic arbitrations.

Abstract Abstract

This study examines the challenges arising from the death of a litigant during initial proceedings and the subsequent filing of an appeal against the deceased. Its primary objective is to clarify the duties of the appellate court when faced with such an appeal. By analyzing sample verdicts from a provincial appellate court, the article explores legal solutions for two main scenarios: when the first-instance court was aware of the death and when it was not.

Various approaches are analyzed and critiqued, including nullifying the verdict, dismissing the appeal, proceeding with the deceased's successor, returning the case to correct the verdict, re-serving documents to grant a new appeal deadline, and issuing a deficiency notice.

The research findings indicate that, among the different perspectives, deeming the appeal incomplete and returning the case to the first-instance court to remedy the deficiency (in accordance with Articles 341 and 345 of the Civil Procedure Code) is the fairest approach. In contrast, approaches like dismissing the appeal lack legal foundation and lead to the deprivation of the right to appeal or impose the burden of a double appeal cost on the condemned party.

Abstract Civil procedure Law can no longer be regarded as an inward-looking discipline isolated from comparative perspectives. The era when the entire procedural law was so dependent on the judicial system that all its elements assumed the characteristics of public order, and public authority was utilized to dismiss criticism and analysis, has now passed. Today, after many years, due to the lofty goals inherent in its nature and the responsibilities assigned to it beyond its primary objective, civil procedure has become a serious subject for comparative studies. Articles are written from a comparative perspective, and theses and dissertations are considered deficient without comparative research. The Comparative Civil Procedureseries, prepared under the supervision of the late Cappelletti with the participation of renowned global scholars of comparative civil procedure, clearly reveals the remarkable face of civil procedure in the realm of comparative studies. The value of research conducted in this field is undeniable.

Abstract In judicial proceedings, success ultimately depends on the ability to prove one’s right, and such proof is only possible through the presentation of evidence. A claimant who possesses a valid right but fails to substantiate it not only loses the case but may also be compelled to bear the litigation costs of the opposing party. It is therefore a matter of prudence to secure evidence prior to initiating a lawsuit. One of the principal legal tools for this purpose in Iranian law is the preservation of evidence, regulated under Articles 149–154 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This mechanism empowers individuals to request the intervention of judicial authorities in order to safeguard evidence that may later serve to establish their claims.







This article explores the objectives of preservation of evidence, the procedural framework governing its application, the duty of courts to maintain impartiality while ordering such measures, the competent jurisdiction and timing of requests, and the legal effects and evidentiary weight of preserved material. Given that the Iranian institution of preservation of evidence was inspired by French law, the study also provides comparative references to the French legal system, highlighting similarities and divergences where relevant.

Abstract The concept of prescription, or limitation of time for initiating legal proceedings, was first addressed The Statute of Limitations for Movable Properties, approved on July 2, 1929 It was later articulated in a more general language in Iran’s 1939 Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). Article 731 defined prescription as a period after which courts would no longer hear claims, while Article 737 established a ten-year limitation for property-related and debt claims, unless otherwise provided by specific laws. This legal framework remained valid until 1983, when the Guardian Council—responsible for ensuring the compatibility of legislation with Islamic jurisprudence—declared the provisions on prescription contrary to Islamic law and therefore null and void. Consequently, Iranian courts ceased to recognize prescription as a defense, and the new CCP enacted in 2000 omitted any reference to it.
Despite the general invalidation of prescription under civil law, certain specific provisions in other legal codes—such as the Commercial Code, the Insurance Code, and the Islamic Criminal Code—have remained operative. Furthermore, in 1992 and 2008, the Guardian Council clarified that its 1983 decision did not apply to claims brought by foreign nationals against Iranian citizens if the claimant’s national legal system recognized prescription. In such cases.

Abstract Ontario has begun a major reform of its Rules of Civil Procedure through the 2024–2025 Civil Rules Review (CRR)—the first full evaluation in nearly forty years. The review seeks to modernize procedures, reduce delay and cost, and make the justice system more accessible. Its guiding principles emphasize access, proportionality, modernization, timeliness, diversity, and transparency.
The most debated proposal is the replacement of oral discovery with an “up-front evidence model,” requiring early witness statements and limited document exchange. Supporters argue that this will reduce expenses and delays; however, opponents caution that it will undermine fairness, particularly for vulnerable or self-represented litigants who rely on oral questioning to uncover facts and assess credibility.
More than 95 percent of Ontario civil cases settle before trial, and many lawyers argue that discovery is the process’s key equalizer. They call for pilot projects and limited exceptions rather than a complete ban. From a comparative perspective, Ontario’s reform reflects a global movement toward simpler, digital, and proportionate civil justice and illustrates how procedural modernization must balance efficiency with fairness.

Abstract A judgment can have the potential for multiple objections at the simultaneously. This assumption will pose challenges in dispute where the parties are multiple and indivisible. After the judgment of the inferiorcourt, some of the losing parties may file an appeal within the specified deadline, while others may choose the appealing to the supreme court after the appeal deadline has expired or by waiving their right to appeal. The Apply of both rights of objection changes changes the authority and has led to the existence of various judgments, the result of which we see in the Unification of Judgments Decision of Supreme Court No.855. Some branches hold that there should be a deal in both the appellate court and the Supreme Court, considering that the right to appeal is regarded as one of the fundamental rights and the other hand, some branches, relying on the extension of the judgment based on Articles 359, 367, and 404 of the Civil Procedure Code, consider that the mere filing of an appeal by some parties to the dispute and the issuance of a judgment by the appellate court prevents the review of the request for appealing to the supreme court.

Abstract The stage of execution of judgments is the most sensitive stage of the trial and realization of rights. Therefore, delay, suspension or withdrawal is not permissible. The mission of the judiciary in the chapter of hostility and realization of rights is completed only when the judgment is properly executed and the validity of the executive measures and regulatory documents is guaranteed. Therefore, in addition to the deadlines set for the convicted person who refuses to execute the judgment and interested persons in the capacity of objecting to the manner of execution of the judgment in various articles of the Civil Execution Law, another opportunity, unlimited in scope, should not be given to annul the execution and withdrawal in all executive measures of the judiciary. Obviously, the unanimous decision No. 845 dated 8/12/1402 of the General Board of the Supreme Court has not only nullified all deadlines related to objections to the quality of execution of civil judgments, but has also brought severe insecurity to the buyers of property subject to judicial auctions.