پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 162 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,578 |
| تعداد مقالات | 71,072 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 125,686,450 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 98,915,253 |
جهت در دعاوی مدنی و ویژگی‌های آن در دعوای طلاق با نگاهی به حقوق فرانسه | ||
| مطالعات حقوق خصوصی | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 54، شماره 1، اردیبهشت 1403، صفحه 123-143 اصل مقاله (965.1 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jlq.2024.369848.1007841 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| حسن محسنی* | ||
| دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی و اسلامی، دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| جهت، چیزی است که استحقاق خواهان در ادعا و خوانده در دفاع را نمایان می‌کند. در دادرسی مدنی، تمرکز یا تجمیع یا با هم آوردن همة جهات در یک دادرسی، طرفدارانی دارد، ولی در حقوق همان کشور خاستگاه، یعنی فرانسه، نیز از آن گذشته‌اند. جهت را باید عنصر مولد دعوا دانست که به عنصر مولد رأی بدل و در اینجا به اعتبار امر قضاوت‌شده مربوط می‌شود. نمی‌توان اصلی با عنوان یکجا با هم آوردن جهات در دادرسی مدنی پیش‌بینی کرد و با این اصل، مانع دادخواهی‌های بعدی شد. جهات در برخی دعاوی خانواده مانند طلاق، شکل و ماهیت خاصی پیدا می‌کند. ماهیت دعاوی خانواده و وظیفة دادگاه در حفظ کیان و بقای خانواده، موجب می‌شود جهات استحقاق قانونی، قراردادی و قضایی این دعوا با نقش فعال قاضی در فرایند دادرسی همراه شود و حتی طرفین بتوانند ترکیبی از جهات را مطرح کنند. جامة بسیاری قواعد آیین دادرسی مدنی بر قامت آیین دادرسی خانواده راست نمی‌آید. در دعاوی طلاق، خواهان باید بتواند جهات استحقاق را تغییر دهد و تنها مانع قاضی برای استناد به این جهات، به باور نگارنده، رعایت نشدن حقوق دفاعی خوانده است. گرایش‌های رویة قضایی برای متفاوت دانستن این دعاوی از دعاوی مدنی سست است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| تمرکز؛ جهت؛ جهات استحقاق؛ عنصر مولد دعوا | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Cause in Civil Actions and Its Features in Divorce Lawsuits A Comparative Study in French Law | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Hassan Mohseni | ||
| Associate Professor, Department of Private and Islamic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| This article employs a library-based research method that is both critical and analytical-comparative. This approach entails the utilization of resources available in libraries, encompassing both paper and electronic materials. The methodology employed in the study and review was entirely critical. No comment has been included in this article unless it has been subjected to a thorough review and critique. In addition, the contents of this article, including topics and questions, have been subjected to analytical scrutiny with a view to comparative law. Comparative studies have been carried out concerning French law to focus on the analysis and evaluation. The law of French civil procedure and the court precedence of this country have been considered in the comparative study. Along with this study, court precedence has also been examined. Article 51 (4) of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the petitioner must set forth "the obligations and reasons according to which the petitioner considers himself entitled to a claim" to ensure that the intent is clear. This request requires the petitioner to specify the grounds on which they believe their claim to be justified. Although the concept of "reasons" ("le moyen" in French terminology) is discussed in terms of several thematic, prescriptive, and affirmative categories, from an objective standpoint, the reasons can be anything from the perspective of the claimant. They may be rooted in the law of contracts, outside of it, or even in the law. For this reason, an answer within the legal system is sufficient. This article focuses on whether the plaintiff can rely on more than one aspect in his lawsuit or whether the defendant can raise some aspects and defer others for subsequent consideration rather than presenting all aspects as the basis of his defense. To illustrate, should the petitioner petition the court for a divorce judgment and allege instances of bad behavior, non-payment of alimony, addiction, and neglect? Is it permissible for a divorce seeker to consolidate multiple analogous grounds for dissolution of the marriage into a single category, thereby indicating that she is in a predicament? In a lawsuit to terminate a contract, may the claimant request the termination in general and state his entitlement defect in goods or fraud? In all of these examples, can the judge select one of these aspects and refrain from commenting on the others or issue a judgment of disqualification and rejection? What is the effect of this type of judging? If a person has not raised the claim of termination of the contract due to fraud and other similar grounds in the lawsuit that require the preparation of an official document, can they raise such a claim in a subsequent lawsuit? How would the defendant respond to such a claim? Two categories of solutions have been proposed to address these questions. One proposed solution is the concentration or consolidation of the aspects in question, which would require the petitioner and the defendant to present all aspects in a proceeding. If they fail to do so, it is assumed that they have claimed or defended all aspects. The other solution, which is the result of the first, is the prohibition of restating these aspects. Subsequently, a new lawsuit is initiated, which includes the res judicata. The article's primary contribution is delineating a clear distinction between the underlying causes of a dispute and the factors that precipitate and perpetuate it. This distinction is crucial for understanding the complexities of dispute resolution. Accepting that the cause is not one of the fundamental principles of res judicata is impossible. Instead, the subject of the dispute and its entitlements, along with the parties' unity, represent the fundamental principles underpinning the validity of res judicata. Furthermore, assuming that the general rule is to present all sides simultaneously in every trial is untenable. It is presumed that this has been done, and the res judicata prevents filing a lawsuit or defense against any other party in litigation. Another noteworthy development is acknowledging the distinction between civil and family procedural norms in this context. Nevertheless, family law and its associated procedures exhibit a distinctive aspect pertaining to the demand for divorce. In this context, divorce is initiated through a formal request, which legal considerations may prompt, the circumstances of the parties involved, or a judge's decision in a complex case involving a woman. One reason, and several reasons, falls into several categories. The Constitution and the symbolic nature of hardships and difficulties make it reasonable to conclude that the judge of the family court may consider the possibility of divorce due to hardships and difficult situations. Furthermore, changes in these reasons should be accepted, even if this is done at the appeal stage. The criterion is that these actions and changes are compatible with the purpose and intent of the request, even though they result in a shift in the legal basis of the lawsuit. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Direction, Directions of Entitlement, Content Generating Element, Concentration | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
منابع
الف) فارسی
10.3495/JIIL.2021.690640
https://doi.org/10.22096/law.2019.70028.1136
10. محسنی، حسن (۱۳۸۵). «مفهوم اصول دادرسی و نقش تفسیری آنها و چگونگی تمییز این اصول از تشریفات دادرسی». کانون وکلا، ش ۱۹۲ و ۱۹۳، ص ۹۹-۱۳۱. در: https://ensani.ir/fa/article/154951/ (۱۰ تیر ۱۴۰۳).11. محسنی، حسن (۱۳۹۷). «تصرفات دادخواهان در دعوا و دادرسی (رویکرد تطبیقی)». مجلة حقوق تطبیقی، دورة ۹، ش ۱، ص ۴۰۳-۴۲۳. 10.22059/JCL.2018.246044.633580
12. مذاکرات و آرای هیأت عمومی دیوان عالی کشور سال ۱۳۹۸ (۱۴۰۰). تهران: مرکز مطبوعات قوة قضاییه، ج ۲۵.
13. موسوی، امیرحسام و علی عمرانی، (۱۳۹۷). «واکاوی فقهی - حقوقی جهت خواسته در دعاوی مدنی». پژوهشنامة حقوق اسلامی، دورة ۱۹، ش ۲، ص ۵۲۱-۵۴۲.
14. نهرینی، فریدون (۱۳۹۸). آیین دادرسی مدنی، دعوا و شرایط اقامه و استماع آن. ج ۲، تهران: گنج دانش.
15. هرمزی، خیرالله (۱۳۹۲). «تغییر عناصر دعوا: شرحی بر مادة ۹۸ قانون آیین دادرسی مدنی». پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، سال دوم، ش ۳، ص ۹-۳۳. (https://jplr.atu.ac.ir/article_2236.html) (۱۰ تیر ۱۴۰۳).
ب) خارجی
16. Cadiet, L., & Jeuland, E. (2023). Droit judiciaire privé. Paris, Litec, 12ème éd. 17. Weiller, L. (2006). “Renouvellement des critères de l'autorité de la chose jugée : l'Assemblée plénière invite à relire Motulsky”. in: Recueil Dalloz, pp. 2135. (http://www.dalloz.fr/lien? famille=revues&dochype=RECUEIL/NOTE/2006/0457) (Accessed 12 Jun 2024) 18. Bléryle, C. (2020). “Concentration des moyens ou des demandes et autorité de chose jugée: rien de bien nouveau sous le soleil…”. in : Dalloz Actualité. (https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/flash/concentration-des-moyens-ou-des-demandes-et-autorite-de-chose-jugee-rien-de-bien-nouveau-sous-) (Accessed 12 Jun 2024) 19.Guinchard, S. (2009). “L’autorité de la chose qui n’a pas été jugée à l’épreuve des nouveaux principes directeurs du procès civil”. in Mélanges G. Wiederkehr, Dalloz, pp. 379. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 342 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 311 |
||
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب