Document Type : Research Paper
Author
assistant professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science- University of Allameh Tabataba'i University,
Abstract
The division of judicial bodies and the establishment of monetary thresholds as a criterion for determining value-based jurisdiction(ratione valoris)are fundamental tools of judicial policy aimed at enhancing the efficiency of the justice system and ensuring the optimal allocation of resources. This model, with deep roots in both Civil Law and Common Law systems, is founded on the principle of proportionality between the complexity of a dispute and the adjudicating body. It plays a decisive role in segregating minor from major claims, facilitating specialized case allocation, and enabling higher courts to focus on more significant disputes—all in service of the meta-principle of the proper administration of justice.Unification Judgment No. 865, issued by the Iranian Supreme Court by affirming the plaintiff’s ability to value a claim in a manner that influences value-based jurisdiction, has ignited significant legal debate regarding the foundational objectives of this jurisdictional framework and the proper effect of claim valuation, raising extensive theoretical and practical implications. This article examines these dimensions using an analytical-critical methodology and a historical-comparative approach. Legislative history and comparative analysis reveal that Iranian law has traditionally relied on the “real value” to determine jurisdiction, seldom permitting a plaintiff’s unilateral valuation to be the sole basis
Keywords
- Access to Justice
- Principle of Proportionality
- Proper Administration of Justice
- Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (ratione valoris)
- Peace Court
- Valuation of the Claim
Main Subjects
)