Comparative Civil Procedure

Abstract If several cases are related to each other, the Civil Procedure Code provides for procedural arrangements, including the merger or consolidation of litigation, in order to prevent the issuance of conflicting judgments as well as to increase the quality and efficiency of the proceedings. Accordingly, in this research, first, in simple terms, the semantics orConceptology of the relationship between lawsuits and criteria and how to achieve it has been investigated. This has been considered with the approach of comparative law and according to the international guidance texts of civil procedure law and its comparison with domestic laws. According to the study of the issue in domestic and comparative law, it seems that the criteria of connection between the claims and their insignificant differences are a subsidiary issue in this subject, and the focus is on the substantive connection of common or closely related interests under consideration, which will be examined by the court as a substantive matter. According to the results mentioned, in interpreting the rules, providing solutions to issues, as well as future amendments to the rules of procedure, enhance the managerial power of the judge in order to examine the status of the relation between the claims and their effects and issue an appropriate order in this regard should be given more attention to the course of the proceedings.

Abstract the court the authority to recognize or not recognize the arbitrator's award at the stage of its enforcement. The tone of this part of the aforementioned Article also indicates that even in the case of a request for recognition or enforcement of the arbitrator's award, the court must refrain from recognition or enforcing it if it observes a violation of substantive and mandatory laws in the award.

One view, based on the first part of Article 489 of the Civil Procedure Code, is that if the arbitration award is clearly contrary to mandatory laws, the court can refuse to enforce it, and for this, there is no need for the parties to the arbitration to object or for such an objection to be within the deadline. In fact, it must be accepted that even if no objection is made to the arbitral award or if this objection is out of time, the court must refrain from enforcing the arbitral award that it finds to be contrary to one of the clauses of Article 489 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Abstract Just as attorneys, as one of the two wings of the “angel of justice,” facilitate the protection of rights, they may also deviate from their essential mission by filing frivolous litigations. This raises an important question: what disciplinary sanctions may be imposed on an attorney who files a frivolous litigation? Can such conduct be regarded as a disciplinary offense, thereby subjecting the attorney to disciplinary sanctions? Addressing this question within the legal systems of Iran and the United States (Federal), using a descriptive–analytical method and relying on library-based sources, is the central aim of this paper. After examining the concept of frivolous litigation and tracing the historical evolution of disciplinary sanctions to it, the study concludes that, under Iranian law, filing of a frivolous litigation with bad faith by an attorney may result in suspension for a period ranging from three months to two years, demotion in professional rank, removal of the attorney’s license, or even disbarment. Under U.S. federal law, however, once mere negligence (rather than bad faith) in filing a frivolous litigation is established, a broad range of disciplinary sanctions such as reprimand, suspension, or disbarment may be imposed.

Abstract This article examines the interrelationship between justice (dād) and joy (shādī) in Ferdowsi’s Shāhnāmeh, approached through the central Zoroastrian principle of wisdom (kherad). The study explores how these concepts emerge from the dual framework of “being” and “non-being,” or “light” and “darkness,” which reflects the moral tension between good and evil in human existence. In Ferdowsi’s vision, justice is the source of joy; each gives rise to the other and together they shape a harmonious and enlightened human order. Wisdom enables human beings to reach truth, which manifests the divine natural order attributed to Ahura Mazda. Justice, in turn, sustains social, natural, and psychological balance. Rooted in ancient Iranian ethical thought, this process transforms disorder into the moral and political harmony represented by Shahrivar (divine dominion). Through the union of wisdom and justice, Ferdowsi presents an ethical model grounded in empathy, responsibility, and collective well-being. Ultimately, the Shāhnāmeh portrays justice not only as a rational principle but also as a foundation for individual and communal joy. The enduring bond between wisdom and justice becomes the basis for a prosperous and harmonious society.

Abstract Arbitration is one of the most important methods of peaceful dispute resolution, particularly in the international sphere. The theory of “Autonomy of arbitration” asserts that arbitration is an autonomous institution which, while drawing upon agreement, law, and arbitral practice, possesses the capacity to design its own procedure and governing rules based on the nature of the relationship and the needs of the parties. Therefore, arbitration should not merely be viewed as an extension of judicial proceedings or as entirely dependent on the contract. This study, using a descriptive–analytical approach and a comparative method, examines the independence of arbitration with a focus on three core elements: law, agreement, and the practical conduct of arbitrators. The research demonstrates that maximum independence from law and judicial authority, alongside minimal dependence on party agreement, can ensure the efficiency of arbitration. The findings indicate that regulatory frameworks aligned with this perspective can actualize the latent potential of arbitration for peaceful dispute settlement and the fulfillment of its objectives.

Abstract In order to achieve a fair trial, the final judgments of the judicial authorities have been considered valid, according to which no organization can refuse to implement them except in legal cases, furthermore, these judgments prevent any re-examination of the same dispute. This will bring stability to the validity of judgments. In contrast to the validity of a judgment, sometimes its accuracy is also discussed, and sometimes its legitimacy. This credibility can also be examined from various aspects and the elements of its realization can be analyzed. Therefore, the present study aims to identify the concept of " judgment validity" using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative perspective, seeking to answer the fundamental question of what are valid judgment and correct judgment? What are the types of judgment validity and what elements are required to establish this validity? On this basis, this article, while explaining the concept of a valid, legitimate, and correct judgment, examines the types of validity from a formal and material perspective and finally, it examines the constituent elements of this trust from the perspective of the law and the actions of the parties.

Abstract According to the procedure of the Disciplinary Councils for Construction Engineering Organization (the Council or Councils), the right to disciplinary complaint or defending the client’s rights in the Council should be specified by the letter of authority, either the form of letter of attorney for courts, or the notarized letter of authority. Consequently, based on the said part, the Councils refuse to accept the letter of authority of judiciary attorneys in which the right to disciplinary complaint or defending the client’s rights in these councils is not specified. The Specialized Board for Administrative and Public Affairs of the Administrative Court of Justice in the judgment No. 140431390000924695, dated July 13, 2025, has dismissed a complaint the relief sought of which was the annulment of that part. But is the judgment issued correctly? It seems that the judgment is incorrect and has illogical foundations and bases in its introductions and conclusion; thus, it deserves to criticize from the several point of view. Among the most serious problems in this fallacious judgment are the “unaccepted enthymeme fallacy” and “one-sided assessment fallacy”. The judgement is contaminated..

Abstract Although the procedural law and formalities governing monetary obligations are not an isolated enclave apart from the general rules of adjudication, the distinctive features of such obligations, often arising in contracts between merchants or ordinary persons acting for commercial purposes, have at times warranted separate inquiry. The central question pursued in this article, therefore, is what specific procedural rules govern monetary obligations. It appears that, by virtue of their particular nature, monetary obligations in certain respects attract specialized rules that merit close scrutiny. Accordingly, employing an analytical–descriptive method and drawing on library sources, the study examines these rules from the very inception of proceeding, namely, the preparation and filing of the statement of claim—through to the enforcement of the judgment. The article is thus organized into six sections, addressing in turn: (1) the designation of the relief sought, (2) the valuation of the claim, (3) jurisdiction and court fees, (4) defenses, (5) the rendering of judgment, and (6) its enforcement.

Abstract According to The Regulations on the use of computer or telecommunicatons system the mere receipt of the notification in the system implies (legal) notification, and if the addressee sees the content of the notification by logging into the system. The notification becomes real. This is while in France only the visibility of the notification on the same the of sending is considered to be the reason for considering its description as real and considers electronic notification to be notification to the residence. On the other hand,the regulations consider the addresse s awareness of the contents of the electronic notification to be the basis unless the claimant proves otherwise. This is while considering that electronic registration is mandatory for all individuals. the assumption of awareness of the notification is contrary to the principle of respecting the rights of defense. Therefore, the provision of note 1 of Article 13 of the regulations should be considered as an addition to the provisions of Article 306 of the code of civil procedure which speaks of justified excuses in legal actions and measures and ,as the case may be, leads to a renewal of the deadline or action .

Abstract Guaranteeing linguistic rights in civil proceedings secures the supremacy of fair-trial principles throughout the proceedings . The language of proceedings is principally, that of the state in which the court is seated and any change to the language in domestic proceedings is prohibited because of its link to public order. Some countries, however, allow changing the procedural language in international commercial disputes; in such systems, the first step is the enactment of enabling legislation, followed by the establishment of bilingual chambers and limiting party agreements to predetermined languages. Translation is the solution to the problem of unfamiliarity with the language of proceedings. Oral interpretation is instrumental: the objective is achieved insofar as the party’s understanding and right of defence are effectively secured. By contrast, written translation is substantive: a document lacking translation is excluded from the evidentiary record. Translation also constitutes a form of expert activity and translators are procedurally subject to the provisions governing expert evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure. In civil matters, translation costs are borne by the parties, and translation quality depends on training translators in legal-interpretation skills. The potential for inconsistency or error provides sufficient grounds for allowing the translator’s opinion to be challenged.

Abstract International commercial arbitration is founded on party autonomy, yet “public policy” remains a central tool of state supervision and a recurrent ground for refusing recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards. This study offers a comparative analysis of how Iran and England interpret this complex exception. In Iranian law, public policy is closely linked to “good morals” and mandatory Shari‘a-based rules, which has traditionally produced a strict legislative and judicial approach. However, recent decisions of the Tehran Commercial Courts show a growing inclination toward a narrow interpretation and a clearer distinction between domestic and international public policy, aiming to harmonize national practice with international standards. In contrast, the English legal system—relying on the New York Convention and the Arbitration Act 1996—adopts a minimal-intervention, pro-enforcement stance. English courts differentiate between domestic and international public policy and deny enforcement only in cases of manifest violations of fundamental justice or proven fraud. The comparative findings indicate that, despite distinct doctrinal foundations, both systems are gradually converging toward restricting judicial interference and embracing the notion of “transnational public policy” to enhance predictability, finality, and the enforceability of international arbitral awards.

Abstract The essence of the procedural executions were devised as to seem separate flexibility and company of judgement debtor. Whether in this procedure, they are causative for extra expenses and new headaches for the judgment creditor and judiciary with revolutionary treatment and defiance to the judgement. Such an attitude has caused the procedure of the judgment executions has adopted savage and harsh nature to the judgement debtor and event in some cases the creativity in arrangement the affairs of the executions is assigned to the judgement creditor. However, the reality demonstrates the concern of all the legal systems in relation to the rights and the privacy of the judgement debtor. It is true that the judgement creditor has reached this target by passing a tough and costly passage and. It is false that the exaggeration in this passage amount to violation the privacy of ethics and some immunities.

The execution the civil judgements is of the sequence of important principles. These principles assure the exact execution of the judgment and accelerates achieving the result. However, this important principle which marginalizes these principles and curbs the risk of divergence and illegitimate violence is executive equity.

Abstract The autonomy of sport can be considered a fundamental principle within Good Sports Governance and the most basic factor in Maintaining the sport's intrinsic value. This principle means the right of self-regulation, free from interference of any inappropriate external factor, and the ratification of Sports Regulation alongside a wide spectrum of sporting competences. The Principle of Autonomy of Sport, by creating a type of "Sport proceedings", puts the Sports Dispute Resolution (especially elections of federations) within Sports Judicial Bodies in the best position. Courts have recognized autonomy of sport respecting the Good Sports Governance, based on deserving, and the intrinsic resistance of Sporting Governing Bodies(SGBs); as well it has been recognized by a resolution ‘A/69/PV.2 adopted by the UNGA.

Due to the Principle of Autonomy of Sport, SGB, through their own regulations, establish procedural regulations regarding the Sports Dispute Resolution, which shape the legal regime "Sport proceedings" under the Sports Law System. Sport proceedings independently and finite based on the component of "sport specificity", is inherently sports administration(disciplinary) and sports disputes, and settling any activity or matter related or connected to sport. Sport proceedings, based on the Principle of Autonomy of Sport, has Characteristics of an independent and finite proceedings.

Abstract In paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Dispute Resolution Councils Law, approved in 1402, the legislator has placed financial claims up to one billion rials under the jurisdiction of the Court of Peace and on the other hand, note 4 Article 20 states that "the handling of claims regarding immovable property that lacks an official document is solely within the jurisdiction of the competent judicial authority. According to Article 61, the plaintiff has the option to determine the price of the claim (whether in movable or immovable property) and this measure is effective in terms of litigation costs and the ability to appeal. As a result of the aforementioned authority, the plaintiff was raising the immovable property claim based on a "demand schedule" (valuation) lower than the above threshold and this action, considering the aforementioned Articles 12 and 20, caused a difference of judgments among the courts as to which court has jurisdiction to hear this case? The answer has been given in the Unification of Judgments Decision of Supreme Court No.865.

Abstract Iran’s petroleum sector relies heavily on arbitration as the primary method of resolving disputes arising under Iran Petroleum Contracts (IPCs), particularly those involving sensitive exploration and production (E&P) oil field projects. This article provides a comprehensive doctrinal analysis of the ad-hoc arbitration agreement contained in IPC Appendix P, demonstrating how it adapts international procedures, principally the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules—to the specific requirements of Iran’s legal system. Through detailed examination of statutory frameworks, including the Law on International Commercial Arbitration (LICA) and constitutional constraints imposed by Article 139, the research exposes the procedural, jurisdictional, and enforcement challenges faced by parties engaging in petroleum arbitration in Iran. It further scrutinises the IPC’s multi-tier dispute resolution architecture, incorporating negotiation, ADR, ministerial review, and arbitration, and highlights the unique features of Iran’s arbitration landscape, such as the mandatory application of Iranian law and restrictions on damage types. The study compares Iranian practice with international standards and identifies both areas of convergence and structural divergence. The article concludes with practical recommendations for contract drafters, counsel, and arbitrators navigating disputes under IPCs, focusing on arbitrability approvals, procedural efficiency, enforcement strategy, damages assessment, and tribunal selection.

Abstract La reconnaissance et l’exécution en France de décisions rendues hors de l’Union européenne, en l’absence de convention applicable, obéissent à une logique bien connue : permettre l’efficacité internationale des jugements sans transformer le juge français en juge d’appel, tout en préservant les exigences essentielles de l’ordre juridique du for. Dans les rapports avec un État tiers, ce régime de droit commun s’applique sous réserve des conventions sectorielles et, le cas échéant, de la Convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019 lorsque l’État d’origine est partie (ce qui demeure, à ce jour, limité). Cette mécanique, pourtant stable, est aujourd’hui mise sous tension par le contentieux des données à caractère personnel. Deux phénomènes se conjuguent : la judiciarisation transfrontalière des litiges « data » (actions collectives, contentieux contractuels de sous-traitance, injonctions probatoires), et l’affirmation d’un standard européen de protection, structuré autour du Règlement (UE) 2016/679 du 27 avril 2016 relatif à la protection des personnes physiques à l’égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel (Règlement général sur la protection des données, ci-après RGPD).

Abstract This article investigates the articulation of contractual claims within the framework of commercial and investment arbitration, addressing the recurrent question of when a contractual breach by a state-owned entity may rise to the level of a treaty breach attributable to the host state. Through a doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis, it traces the evolution of this issue from early academic debate to key arbitral precedents such as SGS v. Pakistan, SGS v. Philippines, and Garanti Koza v. Turkmenistan. The article discusses the interpretive challenges surrounding umbrella clauses, the distinction between contractual and treaty obligations, and the impact of forum selection clauses on arbitral jurisdiction. It further assesses the role of broadly drafted dispute resolution and most-favoured-nation clauses in extending treaty protection to contractual breaches. The analysis demonstrates that arbitral practice remains inconsistent and fragmented, revealing tensions between party autonomy under contract and the internationalisation of state responsibility under investment treaties. Drawing on comparative case law and practical experience from Iran, the article concludes with drafting recommendations for foreign direct investment contracts to preserve treaty-based avenues of redress. By clarifying the conditions under which contractual obligations may be internationalised, this