Document Type : Research Paper

Author

• Badie Fathi

Assistant Professor, Department of Private and Economic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Peace Court was added to Iran's judicial system as a court with relative jurisdiction (jurisdictional amount) according to the Dispute Resolution Council Law of 1402. This court did not exist in the bill proposed by the judiciary. Following the opposition of the Constitutional Council by giving jurisdiction to the Dispute Resolution Council and as a result of the subsequent cooperation between the Constitutional Council, the Parliament, and the Judiciary, it was established. The absence of understanding of the goals, principles, and rules governing the establishment of a court with relative jurisdiction, has caused defects in the jurisdiction of the peace court. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the current situation and with a historical look at courts with relative jurisdiction to look for what are the rules governing the jurisdiction of courts with relative jurisdiction. And what problems are there in the jurisdiction of the peace court? And how can these defects be eliminated or at least reduced? In the matter of the jurisdiction of the peace court, not specifying whether the jurisdiction in paragraph one of Article 12 of the Dispute Resolution Council Law of 2023 is based on the actual amount of the property or whether the plaintiff has the authority to determine the price of the property is one of the flaws of this law, but it seems that with the help of studying the history of Iranian proceedings, this rule can be Obtained: Whenever an authority with relative jurisdiction has been formed, the criterion of jurisdiction has been the actual amount of the property. In addition, in Article 61 of the Civil Procedure Law of 2000, the determination of the price of property by the plaintiff is effective in the appeal and the cost of the proceedings, and it can be inferred from this article that the determination of the price by the plaintiff has no effect on the jurisdiction.
Regarding the lawsuits related to the Industrial Property Law 2024, even if the value is less than one billion Rials, according to the spirit of Article 143 of the Industrial Property Law and also the expediency of not dividing the courts dealing with these lawsuits, if these lawsuits are considered in the civil court, it is more reasonable.
On the other hand, alimony, dowry, and trousseau claims have been placed under the jurisdiction of the peace court, which is not compatible with the interests of the family, and it would be better if these disputes were not removed from the jurisdiction of the family court. The fair equivalent remuneration of the wife is not mentioned in Article 12(3). However, the claim of the equivalent remuneration of the wife, even if it is less than 1 billion rials, is under the jurisdiction of the family court due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court and the existence of subject matter jurisdiction between the peace court and the family court.
In addition, giving criminal jurisdiction to the peace court can bring the failed experience of the General Courts Law of 1994. Also, the lack of consistency in the defined criminal jurisdictions of the Peace Court is one of the disadvantages of this court's jurisdiction. For example, while "intentional" crimes of the seventh and eighth degrees are under the jurisdiction of the peace court, there is no mention of "unintentional" crimes of the seventh and eighth degrees, and also regarding the private aspect of crimes related to driving and labor law, regardless of the amount, even if it is billions Rial, is also within the jurisdiction of the peace court, but there is no text regarding the jurisdiction of the peace court in dealing with the "private aspect" of seventh and eighth-degree crimes.

Keywords

• relative jurisdiction
• peace court
• dispute resolution council
• implicit (implied) claim

Main Subjects

• Private Law