Kheyrollah Hormozi; Masoomeh Keshtkari
Abstract
The subject matter of the claim form is determined by the claims of the parties in the claim form and the defense bills, so the scope of the court in the proceedings will be determined. However, among the elements raised by the parties, there are facts that neither of them has explicitly cited in order ...
Read More
The subject matter of the claim form is determined by the claims of the parties in the claim form and the defense bills, so the scope of the court in the proceedings will be determined. However, among the elements raised by the parties, there are facts that neither of them has explicitly cited in order to benefit from its legal effects. Moreover, the judge was able to legitimately inform them because it arises from the more general claims of the parties or the documents presented in the case file. These are called Adventitious facts. The question is; “Is it possible for the court to deal with these facts?” Examining the various dimensions of the case shows that accepting the judge's ability to identify these facts in order to benefit from them is accompanied by ambiguities. While the judge's ability to identify and benefit from Adventitious facts is not in dispute in France, this paper attempts to address these ambiguities by focusing on French law. It seems that in Iranian legal system- despite of the lack of a comprehensive legal doctrine in this area- traces of Adventitious facts can be seen in the rulings issued by the courts.
khirallah hormozi; seyed faridodin takapoo
Abstract
the principle of dominance of the parties to the determination of the matter of the dispute, which is known in French law as the principle of dispositif, requires that the judge have no right or obligation to determine the matter of the dispute and its territory. The Judge is obliged to deal with disputes ...
Read More
the principle of dominance of the parties to the determination of the matter of the dispute, which is known in French law as the principle of dispositif, requires that the judge have no right or obligation to determine the matter of the dispute and its territory. The Judge is obliged to deal with disputes within the scope of the matters determined by the parties. nevertheless Sometimes what the plaintiff mentions in his petition has such rational and logical affirmations so that it is impossible for the judge to handle the litigation without addressing them. The reluctance of the court to deal with these instances stems from the fact that these matters have not been explicitly and directly mentioned in the petition, but according to the nature of the claim, the proving the demand would requires proof of its necessity. In this article we are trying to prove the hypothesis that the demand proves rational and logical requirements and it is not in conflict with the principle of dominance of the parties over the matter of fact and the principle of immutability of litigation.
