نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکترای حقوق خصوصی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران، تهران، ایران
2 دانشیار دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکز، تهران، ایران
چکیده
آنچه آیین دادرسی را از سایر نظام‌های حقوقی متمایز می‌سازد، انسجام و هماهنگی دقیق آن است. این نظام بر پایۀ ساختاری منظم شکل گرفته است که اختلال در هر بخش آن می‌تواند نظم کلی را بر هم بزند و عدالت شکلی را تحت تأثیر قرار دهد. برخی مقررات، به‌ویژه دسته‌ای از ایرادات، به‌گونه‌ای تنظیم شده‌اند که مستقیماً با حفظ این نظم مرتبط هستند. درواقع، در آیین دادرسی گاه رعایت ترتیب و توالی قواعد، در مواردی از دستیابی مستقیم به عدالت اهمیت بیشتری دارد. چنین نظمی، طرفین دعوا را ملزم می‌سازد تا وظایف و تکالیف خود را به‌درستی انجام دهند. در این مقاله با روش توصیفی–تحلیلی، به بررسی مبانی و آثار ایرادات مرتبط با نظم دادرسی و ضرورت طرح آن‌ها در زمان مناسب پرداخته شده است. یافته‌ها حاکی از آن است که ایراداتی مانند عدم صلاحیت ذاتی، امر مطرح‌شده، اعتبار امر قضاوت‌شده، گذشتن مهلت قانونی، فقدان ذی‌نفعی، اشکالات مربوط به اهلیت یا سمت، ظنی بودن دعوا، عدم مشروعیت یا عدم ارتباط دعوا به خوانده و نیز ایرادات ناشی از فقدان اثر قانونی، همگی با نظم عمومی آیینی پیوندی ناگسستنی دارند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Relationship Between Procedural Objections and Procedural Public Order in Civil Litigation
نویسندگان [English]
- Rahim Rostampour 1
- Mohammad Bahmani 2
- Mohammad Hossein Erfan manesh 2
1 – Ph.D. Candidate in Private Law, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch,Tehran,Iran
2 – Associate Professor, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch,Tehran,Iran
چکیده [English]
What sets civil procedure apart from other branches of law is its structured, coherent, and orderly nature. This procedural order is not merely a mechanism to facilitate substantive justice; rather, it embodies a distinct form of procedural justice. Within this framework, procedural objections serve as essential instruments for preserving the integrity of the judicial process. Far from being mere technicalities, these objections reflect fundamental legal values, such as the consistency of judgments, judicial efficiency, legal certainty, and respect for procedural fairness.
Using a descriptive-analytical approach, this article explores the theoretical foundations, legal implications, and practical functions of procedural objections within the broader concept of procedural public order. Contrary to the misconception that objections are solely tools for delaying or terminating proceedings, the paper argues that they play a pivotal role in maintaining the legitimacy and coherence of judicial proceedings.
Procedural objections are divided into two primary categories: those that pertain to public procedural order and those related to private party interests. The former includes objections such as lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lis pendens (pending claims), res judicata, expiration of statutory deadlines, lack of legal standing, legal capacity or representation issues, speculative or baseless claims, absence of legal cause, and claims with no legal effect. These are inherently tied to public interest and procedural order and, as such, must be considered by the court even in the absence of a party’s objection.
One of the most significant objections examined is res judicata. This doctrine, which prevents the re-litigation of finalized claims, serves the core objective of avoiding contradictory judgments and preserving the authority and credibility of court decisions. It is tightly interwoven with procedural public order and judicial finality. The article also analyzes Article 84 of Iran’s Code of Civil Procedure, which outlines various objections, and interprets them through the lens of public order theory.
Of particular interest is the objection of connected claims (امر مرتبط), addressed in Articles 84 and 103 of the Iranian Civil Procedure Code. This objection allows a court to halt proceedings when a materially related claim is pending before another court. It ensures that courts do not issue conflicting judgments and that related disputes are resolved in a unified and consistent manner. The court's duty to recognize this objection ex officio, regardless of whether the parties raise it, underscores its alignment with procedural public order.
In this context, the role of attorneys is also crucial. According to Article 103, lawyers and parties are required to inform the court of any related or pending claims in other proceedings. This obligation is not a mere formality—it represents an active contribution to the judicial system's aim of ensuring harmony and avoiding fragmentation of legal determinations.
Furthermore, the paper distinguishes between optional (dispositive) and mandatory (imperative) procedural rules. Optional rules, such as local jurisdiction, serve private interests and require party invocation to be effective. In contrast, mandatory rules, like subject-matter jurisdiction or res judicata, are of such importance to procedural integrity that courts must apply them sua sponte. This distinction marks a critical boundary between objections that courts are obligated to recognize and those that rely on party initiative.
From a comparative perspective, the article engages with French procedural law, highlighting analogous mechanisms such as litispendance and connexité. These concepts, alongside autorité de la chose jugée (res judicata), illustrate France’s shared emphasis on procedural coherence, judicial economy, and the protection of public order. French jurisprudence and statutory provisions similarly oblige judges to recognize certain objections without party request, affirming their public nature.
Moreover, the comparative analysis shows that while French courts have long developed a sophisticated doctrine distinguishing between procedural obstacles of public and private character, Iranian law—though inspired by civil law traditions—still needs further doctrinal refinement to achieve a similar level of clarity. This calls for deeper legislative and judicial engagement with the principles of procedural order.
The article further draws upon Iranian case law and judicial practice to support its claims, including notable decisions from Iran’s Supreme Court and lower tribunals. These judgments demonstrate a growing awareness of the need to uphold procedural order by treating certain objections as non-waivable and binding on the courts. For example, the Iranian judiciary increasingly acknowledges that public-order-based objections, if overlooked, can undermine not only the rights of litigants but the legitimacy of the system as a whole.
Ultimately, the study concludes that preserving procedural public order requires a conceptual reassessment of objections in civil procedure. Objections that are deeply tied to public interest—such as res judicata, lack of jurisdiction, and pendency of related proceedings—must not be treated as mere defenses but as structural safeguards of the judicial process. Their recognition and enforcement by courts, even without party invocation, is essential to ensuring consistency, legitimacy, and the rule of law in civil adjudication.
In sum, procedural objections should be viewed as more than reactive tools; they are proactive guarantees of institutional fairness, procedural coherence, and legal stability. This article advocates a jurisprudential shift toward recognizing objections as vital expressions of public legal order, thereby aligning Iranian civil procedure with comparative models and international standards of fair trial and procedural justice.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- legal order
- enforcement guarantee for violation of legal rules
- procedural exceptions
- mandatory rules
- procedural justice
)