Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Assistant Professor, Nahavand Higher Education Complex, University of Bu-Ali Sina, Hamedan, Iran.
Abstract
The demand for security for damages resulting from filing a false lawsuit is an institution to counter baseless and harassing lawsuits, which has also been considered by the Iranian legislator. Regardless of the concept of a false lawsuit and the conditions for citing it, the present study has attempted to examine, using a descriptive-analytical method, the time to object to the falseness of the lawsuit and the request for security for it. Although at first glance at the text of Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code, there is no restriction on time and for this reason, many courts do not consider the objection to a false lawsuit to be subject to time, the essence of the article and the guarantee of enforcement provided in it show that not only is this institution bound by time, but it also faces time constraints and must be invoked in the first stages of the proceedings.
The usual way to counter a false lawsuit, in addition to compensating for the damages incurred, is to impose a heavy fine or, in some cases, to determine a criminal penalty. However, the guarantee of enforcement provided in the Iranian Civil Procedure Code has been something more than a claim for damages and fines from the very beginning. The defendant can refuse to respond to the plaintiff's lawsuit until he has secured and deposited his possible damages (stay of proceedings). The barrier created in Iranian procedural law against filing false claims is not seen in this way, even in the French Code of Civil Procedure. According to Article 32-1 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (amended in 2005), filing a groundless and frivolous lawsuit will be accompanied by a cash fine. Accordingly, the innovation of the Iranian legislator in dealing with groundless lawsuits is noteworthy.
The law has not provided a precise criterion for identifying the concept and examples of a frivolous lawsuit; the judge may determine a lawsuit to be frivolous based on the "type of lawsuit", "status of the lawsuit" and "other aspects" and collect compensation from the plaintiff for it.
Although examining the conditions for citing the frivolousness of a lawsuit and analyzing the concept of this institution are important in their own right, and lawyers have said and written about it, it is not the subject of this article. In this context, what is in the center of attention is the time of filing and citing the frivolousness of the lawsuit. When or for how long can the defendant object to the frivolousness of the plaintiff's lawsuit? Does this objection necessarily have to be made before the hearing? Is it possible to invoke the fact that the claim is frivolous even after hearing the substantive statements and defenses? Answering these questions is necessary because Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code does not have an explicit provision regarding the time when the claim is frivolous. The aforementioned silence may create the impression and challenge that the objection to the fact that the claim is frivolous is not bound and limited to a specific time; the defendant can request compensation whenever he deems it necessary, and the court, if it finds the defendant's objection, can make a decision in this regard at any time and require the plaintiff to pay damages resulting from the filing of a frivolous claim. In fact, the text and appearance of the law are absolute in terms of time, and therefore, no limitation can be imposed on the defendant.
It goes without saying that any view regarding the time of claiming compensation will have important practical effects and significant consequences in the litigation process. However, regardless of the aforementioned effects and consequences, the reality is that until the nature of the claim for compensation is determined, it is not possible to correctly comment on the time of its filing. Accordingly, the approach and strategy of the present research is to find the time of claiming compensation based on the nature of this entity. The question of what a claim for compensation is and what its examples are goes back to the category of "concept". However, the issue of which category of procedural rules the defendant's claim for compensation for damages based on the claim being false falls into and what its position is in terms of procedure is a question of the nature of the objection to a false claim, and as a statement of the hypothesis, it can be answered as follows: the objection in question is actually a formal objection or, beyond that, it can be considered a substantive defense.
The exceptional nature of the objection to a false claim and attention to some practical problems reinforce the hypothesis that after passing the stage of reviewing the petition and entering into the dispute and its nature, the possibility of objecting to the false claim and requesting compensation will disappear.
Keywords
Main Subjects
- Jolowicz, John Anthony, Cambridge studies in International and Comparative Law (On Civil Procedure), (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000)
)