https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/ The Journal of Critical Analysis of Judicial Decisions en daily 1 Wed, 21 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0330 Wed, 21 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0330 https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_733546.html Court decisions must be “reasoned” and “documented.” In one side, a “reasoned decision” is that the court’s opinion contains a chain of logical and rational propositions that usually convince the reader or, at least, the reader understands what the reasons that led the judge to that conclusion. On the other side, a “documented decision” is that it is specified on the basis of which Act of parliament it was issued. Meanwhile, in the Iranian Judiciary system, the former Head of the Judiciary issued a directive titled: “Directive for the Firmness of Judicial Decisions”.In Article 4 we read that: “Judges throughout the country, especially judges of the Supreme Court, while paying attention to the indicators of issuing decisions, shall compose their decisions in a way that will bring about the dynamism of the legal system and influence academic authorities and researchers as a guiding decision.” That is, the issue goes beyond the fact that the decisions must be documented and well-reasoned. This note addresses the issue of why, instead of implementing and enforcing the need for court decisions to be well-reasoned and documented, for which we have already clear legal Acts, we are searching the skies for an idea of firmness decision? https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_733547.html This article examines the establishment of the “Advisory Council for Assisting Judges” as provided in the Judiciary’s Document on Transformation and Excellence in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It begins by offering a descriptive account of the legal design, objectives, and institutional framework of this council, situating it within the broader policy response to judicial delay in complex, high-profile, and multi-claimant cases. While acknowledging certain limited advantages—such as the formalization of previously informal practices and the articulation of managerial and social concerns—the article emphasizes that these purported benefits do not suffice to legitimize the council within Iran’s existing constitutional and procedural architecture.The central argument advanced is that the recognition and operation of this advisory council constitute a clear instance of the personalization and tastefulness of Iranian law. Through a detailed critical analysis, the article demonstrates that the council lacks a statutory foundation, conflicts with multiple provisions of the Iranian Constitution, undermines the principle of judicial independence, weakens the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings, and erodes the principle of legality in judicial process. Moreover, by employing indeterminate and elastic concepts and by introducing non-transparent decision-making structures, the council exemplifies a broader tendency within the Iranian judicial system toward ad hoc, taste-driven governance detached from the rule of law. The article concludes that, notwithstanding its reformist rhetoric, this institutional innovation risks inflicting structural damage on constitutional resilience and judicial legality in Iran, thereby necessitating serious reconsideration. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_731657.html The General Board of the Supreme Court, from its own perspective, has resolved one of the procedural disputes that have arisen between courts, judicial and registration authorities by issuing the Binding Precedent No. 794.However, this Binding Precedent has several ambiguities on the one hand, and on the other hand has created numerous problems for banks and many challenges for third-party beneficiaries and the courts.The sharp and unusual increase in borrowers' claims against banks (even for settled loans), losses incurred by third parties and those in good faith caused by this decision, the perplexity of the courts, and numerous inquiries addressed to the Legal Department of the Judiciary are among the negative effects of this Binding Precedent.The Binding Precedent No. 794 has declared “the condition contained in the contract for granting banking facilities regarding interest in excess of the aforementioned approvals” to be “invalid”.This clarification, on the one hand, is purely a substantive matter, and therefore, on procedural grounds, the court cannot, on its own initiative, declare the stipulated interest as void unless the beneficiary initiates an appropriate lawsuit and proves his claim, since the presumption is the validity of the banking contract including the stipulated interest.On the other hand, the invalidity of the stipulated interest should be considered subject to Article 232, Paragraph 3 of the Civil Code, not its Article 233. In fact, even if this stipulation is invalid, it is only invalid to the extent that it is contrary to imperative laws and would not invalidate the main contract or the mortgage contract. Whenever imperative law is silent or ambiguous, the presumption is the validity of the stipulation. However, the function of the registration departments in arbitrarily calculating interest and late payment related to the bank, even if it is based on a certain bylaw or approval of a specific authority, is against the law and against the agreement of the parties and needs to be corrected through a specific mechanism (including judicial precedent).This article examines the challenges of the binding precedent related to banking interest from the perspective of banks and financial and credit institutions, and among other things, it addresses the issue that the issuance of this decision has, from many aspects, opened the door to abuse for borrowers who have benefited from bank facilities.This article also proves that the issuance of such binding precedents practically ties the hands of the courts to issue fair judgments (taking into account the circumstances of each case in particular) and basically, in such cases where each case and each instance has its own specific conditions, the issuance of a binding precedent has no logical and academic basis. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_732124.html The issue of compensating losses in transactions invalidated due to legal incapacity (ḥajr) constitutes one of the most complex matters in Iranian private law particularly when the purchase price is paid within an inflationary economy and its real value sharply declines over time. The Tehran Court of Appeal’s ruling, which obliges the incapacitated seller to return the “current expert-assessed value” instead of compensating for the “actual depreciation of the purchase price,” exemplifies the theoretical and practical tension between two competing approaches: one that measures compensation according to the current value of the sold property, and another that considers the purchasing power of the price originally paid. The central question of this study is therefore whether, in a contract voided due to incapacity, the proper criterion for compensation aligns with the principles of civil law, tort liability, unification-of-procedure precedents, and the economic logic of restoring loss. Using library research and documentary analysis, this article examines both the theoretical and practical dimensions of this question.The findings show that adopting the “current market value of the automobile” as the measure of compensation is inconsistent with the doctrinal foundations of nullity, the rules of tort liability, the principle of restoring the parties to their prior position, and the standards set in Unification of Procedure Ruling No. 811; the market value of property is driven by inflation, market fluctuations, and other factors unrelated to the parties’ conduct, and thus cannot accurately reflect the buyer’s real loss. Conversely, the criterion of “depreciation of the purchase price” accords with the structure of Iranian law, the economic analysis of law, relevant jurisprudential principles, and restorative justice. Moreover, the Court’s reasoning displays deficiencies concerning the validity of the incapacitated party’s confession, allocation of the burden of proof, analysis of successive possessors, coherence of reasoning, and treatment of evidence highlighting the need for revisiting judicial reasoning and clarifying the standards for calculating damages. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_731915.html In the Iranian legal system, check is regarded as one of the most significant commercial instruments and plays an essential role in facilitating economic transactions. In recent years, the legislature, with the aim of enhancing transparency and reducing financial misconduct, has made substantial reforms to the legal framework governing checks. The recent reforms in the legal system governing checks, particularly after enforcing reforms concerning the Sayyad system, have generated new challenges in the interpretation and application of the relevant rules. One of the most important of these challenges concerns the possibility or impossibility of initiating a claim to oblige the drawer to register a check in the Sayyad system  a dispute that has led to different and sometimes conflicting opinions from the courts in recent years, leading to controversies and differences of opinion.Carefully examining a judgment rendered by the Appellate Court of Tehran Province and analyzing the legal reasoning relied upon therein in light of the broader Iranian legal framework, this article seeks to determine whether drawing a check without registration in the Sayyad system can constitute a ground for bringing an action to oblige the drawer to register it in the aforementioned system.The research adopts a descriptive–analytical method and is based on library sources. The findings obtained show that registration of checks in the Sayyad system is considered a fundamental element in the process of drawing checks under the Iranian legal system and failure to do so excludes the instrument from the scope of the Law on Issuance of Checks and turns it into a private deed with more limited effects.From this perspective, obliging a person to register a check in the Sayyad system is not consistent with the legal system governing checks in Iran and such an action lacks a valid legal basis and is therefore not admissible. The advisory opinions of the Legal Department of the Judiciary, the bylaws issued by the Central Bank, and legal doctrine also support this view.The significance of these findings has been reinforced by Binding Precedent No. 870 rendered by the Supreme Court, a decision that expressly states that accepting an unregistered check deprives the holder of statutory privileges and that an action seeking to oblige a drawer is not admissible. This decision confirms the analysis presented in the article and clarifies the future judicial precedent in this area. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_731524.html The jurisdiction of an arbitrator to adjudicate claims for rescission or nullity of a contract containing an arbitration clause under Iranian law requires an examination of whether the arbitration clause is separable from, or dependent upon, the underlying contract, in light of a proper interpretation of Article 461 of the Iranian Code of Civil Procedure. If the doctrine of separability is upheld, the arbitrator retains jurisdiction to decide on all forms of contractual dissolution, whether based on rescission or nullity, as the arbitration clause is treated as an autonomous agreement. However, if the arbitration clause is considered dependent on the main contract, a question arises as to whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction to rule on rescission, which essentially involves assessing the continuation or termination of an already valid and existing contract rather than the validity of its formation.In the case under review, the Court of Appeal, relying on Article 461 of the aforesaid Code, denied the arbitrator’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the rescission claim and subsequently annulled the arbitral award. This research, employing a descriptive–analytical method and based on library sources, critically examines the judicial reasoning adopted in this decision. It demonstrates that the court’s inquiry under Article 461 is merely preliminary and prima facie, with the limited purpose of verifying the apparent existence of an arbitration agreement for the appointment of an arbitrator, rather than a substantive review of the merits or the validity of the arbitration agreement.Moreover, even if one assumes dependence of the arbitration clause on the underlying contract, a persuasive interpretation suggests that an arbitrator’s confirmation of rescission concerns the continuation or termination of a contract validly concluded, which falls outside the scope of Article 461 and should not trigger judicial intervention at this stage. Accordingly, adopting an interpretation of Article 461 that aligns with the fundamental principles governing arbitration would prevent inconsistency and divergence in judicial practice in this regard. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_731678.html This research, with a fundamental-applied approach and by using a descriptive-analytical method, examines the jurisprudential-legal validity of general agency in Imami jurisprudence and Iranian law, by criticizing and reviewing judgments, in order to provide a solution for avoiding irrevocable general agency.A general agency, which is concluded in the two forms of revocable or irrevocable, and can be general in terms of subject matter or disposal, or both, given the extent of an agent's authority to make all kinds of possible disposals in both the financial and non-financial affairs of the principal, has been a subject of debate and controversy in various ways, especially with regard to the possibility of abuse by the agent, and has become one of the main challenges faced by the judicial system today.A study of Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law shows that some Islamic jurists and authorities on Iranian law, relying on reasons such as loss, harm, and ambiguity, consider general agency invalid in terms of disposal, although most Islamic jurists consider it to be valid, taking into account the need to observe the principal's interests in this type of agency; a rule that is also understood from Articles 660 and 667 of the Civil Code and the binding precedent rendered by the General Board of the Supreme Court No. 847 - 14 ⁄ 5 ⁄ 2024.However, general agency that are concluded in an irrevocable manner to perform all disposals and actions in all matters related to the principal, especially if the principal has relinquished his right to perform an act contrary to it, are invalid and null due to their similarity to granting guardianship and not agency, as well as their deprivation of the freedom and conflict with the principal's integrity and freedom and incompatibility with public order; a view that has also been confirmed in some judgements.The same approach is also defensible in the case where a person has become another person's agent, generally and for an indefinite period, to take all actions, and by relinquishment of his right to terminate the agent contract. Accordingly, it is suggested that judicial precedent should deal with such agencies in order to control and monitor contracts contrary to public order. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_729254.html Observance of procedural rules in proceedings is essential. What typically guarantees a fair trial is compliance with these rules. It may even be said that procedural rights, apart from substantive rights, are considered an independent right for the individual.This article examines the points related to procedural rules by reviewing the judgment number 140401390002302852 issued by the Second Branch of the General Legal Court of Eshtehard County.Specifically, this research attempts to analyze several important and common points in dealing with legal claims.The first step is to recognize the philosophy behind the creation of judge recusal based on a previous opinion and the limits of its application.On this basis, a new interpretation of paragraph "d" of Article 91 of the Civil Procedure Code has been presented.Accordingly, an order to refer a case for trial in a criminal court is considered a substantive decision. Therefore, the judge who previously in civil trial made such a substantive decision in handling the criminal aspect of the case may also be announced as disqualified.In other words, it is not possible to deal with the legal aspect of a dispute whose criminal dimension has already been handled by the same judge.In addition to this, the conditions required for initiating a lawsuit to be considered an actual confession of an issue have been identified, and the status of the right to sue with a confession, as well as a confession against a judgment issued contrary to the content of the confession, has been examined.Also, cases where the defendant's defense can only be heard through a counterclaim were explained, and finally, the concept and importance of the reasoned and documented judgment have been analyzed.Given that these cases are very likely and common in legal precdent and the dealing with legal claims, the analysis of these cases can be used in the handling of similar claims. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_731323.html Like other legal fields and institutions, e-commerce law is subject to a set of general principles.In addition to their undeniable roles, these principles have the advantage of being an indicator of critique and analysis of a judgment based on its compliance with the aforementioned principles.Since, despite the existence of significant works in the field of e-commerce law, the general principles governing it have not yet been identified and examined in detail in our legal literature, and its position in court judgments has not been criticized and analyzed,, the present article is innovative in two respects.Using library tools and referring to some civil judgments rendered by Iranian law courts (50 civil judgments), this article, by the qualitative method and use of the descriptive-analytical approach, attempts to answer the question as to what degree the above-mentioned principles are adhered to in judgments made by Iranian law courts.The hypothesis of this research is that the issuance of numerous judgments contrary to the aforementioned principles (in 88 percent of the judgments studied) indicates that these principles do not occupy a prominent position in Iranian judicial precedent. This article, in four sections, introduces four important general principles governing e-commerce law and presents a sample judgment from Iranian legal courts for each principle and criticizes it.In conclusion, clear and practical solutions are suggested to groups benefiting from the research results. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_730013.html The purpose of this research is to critically analyze the decision No. 140331390002155119 dated 26⁄ 11 ⁄2024 of the General Board of the Administrative Court of Justice regarding the nullity of the Competition Council's approvals regarding the pricing of ancillary services of petrochemical companies.Relying on Article 190, Paragraph 3, and Articles 214, 216, and 339 of the Civil Code, the said decision declared approval No. 382 issued by the Competition Council null and void due to the failure to determine the transaction price at the time of concluding the contract and the fact that it leads to a loss. Consequently, it also declared Resolutions 479 and 621invalid due to their reliance on the aforementioned approval.Relying on jurisprudential, legal and economic foundations, the present article, with an analytical-critical approach, argues that the decision of the Court of Administrative Justice is flawed in a number of ways. First, the Court's interpretation of the concept of "price certainty" is based on a traditional reading that is inconsistent with the realities of contemporary commerce.In the modern trading system, especially in long-term contracts and monopolistic markets such as the petrochemical industry, determination of the price on a floating basis is an accepted and necessary issue, and commercial custom does not consider it to be a matter that leads to a loss in the transaction.Second, the decision in question ignores the boundary between governmental requirements (Competition Council regulation) and private agreements and extends the rules related to private transactions to governmental actions.This is in conflict with the existential philosophy of regulatory institutions and the principles governing public law. In addition, the aforementioned decision also has significant negative consequences from an economic perspective, since it creates instability in the pricing system and weakens the powers of the Competition Council, leading to increased uncertainty and reduced investment in core industries.Based on the research findings, the decision rendered by the General Board of the Administrative Justice Court is not only inconsistent with the jurisprudential and legal foundations of floating prices and the role of custom in defining the concept of a loss contract (gharar), but also leads to interference between judicial and regulatory jurisdictions and weakens the legal structure of monopolistic markets.Therefore, reviewing the judicial approach to the concept of floating price and redefining the limits of the Court's intervention in regulatory decisions are essential for reforming the country's economic legal system. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_731123.html Although the exclusive right to divorce is recognized as a fundamental principle for men in the Iranian legal system, the acceptance of the hardship rule and the provision for divorce due to the wife's difficulty and hardship in the Civil Code have, to some extent, have enabled courts to free women from unbearable marital situations. The fifth paragraph of the Additional Note to Article 1130 of the Civil Code considers the husband suffering from incurable or contagious diseases that cause difficulties in their married life as a ground for judicial divorce.But due to the prevalence of diseases and the emergence of new diseases, it is naturally not possible to limit them in law. In such cases, judicial precedent, with the help of specific criteria for the rule of hardship and determination of the criteria for the contagiousness or incurability of diseases, can prevent divergence of judgements in similar cases.In this article, we seek to examine the country's legal precedent regarding some of these diseases, which are either new or have become more widespread in recent years.In this article, relying on a descriptive-analytical method, through an examination of judicial judgments, we find that if a husband's illness causes hardship to their married life, it can be the subject of a judicial divorce, and the two factors of incurability and the contagious nature of the disease are the most common grounds for the wife's hardship.Consideration of the opinions of forensic experts regarding the type and severity of the husband's illness and the wife's personal characteristics are very important for the court in confirming hardship.What necessitates the present study is, first of all, to reduce the issuance of conflicting judgments on similar issues, which often occurs in the identical cases and leads to the issuance of contradictory judgments in which the judge insists on his decision after the case being remanded from the Supreme Court, and secondly, where illnesses afflicting the husband make the life wife so difficult that in certain cases, application of the principle of hardship by the court provides the wife with the only avenue of escape from an insufferable situation. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_729435.html A contract to select a court to deal with international disputes, relying on the principle that intention of the parties governs their relationship, is basically considered enforceable. According to Article 59 of the Law on Patents, Industrial Designs and Trademarks of 2007 and Article 143 of the Law on Industrial Property Protection of 2024, the handling of disputes regarding rights and obligations arising out of above mentioned laws and their executive regulations is within the exclusive jurisdiction of Tehran courts, for which reason an agreement to the contrary is not valid.Above mentioned laws and their  In this article, judgments rendered by the Tehran Civil Court and the Appellate Court of Tehran Province regarding the validity of a contract to select a court concerning permission to use a trademark registered in Iran were criticqed and reviewed.The distinction between contractual obligations and legal obligations is effective in determining the whether the condition regarding international jurisdiction is valid or invalid. Therefore, if the dispute arises from contractual obligations, it lies within the jurisdiction of the court chosen by the parties. However, if it arises from rights and obligations set forth in the aforementioned Law or its executive regulations, the dispute will be within the jurisdiction of the Tehran court. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_731887.html The judicial reviewability of appointments to political–administrative positions constitutes a central and evolving issue in delineating the jurisdictional boundaries of the Administrative Justice Court in Iran. This question gained particular prominence following the issuance of General Board Ruling No. 14023190000920600, a decision that sparked extensive legal debate due to its farreaching implications. In this ruling, the General Board annulled the decree appointing the Vice President and Head of the Administrative and Recruitment Affairs Organization, thereby opening a new chapter in the discourse on judicial oversight over senior governmental appointments. Recognizing the significance of this development, the present study employs a descriptive-analytical method grounded in authoritative legal literature and judicial documents to examine the layers and consequences of this unprecedented decision.The petitioner advanced two substantive arguments. The first centered on the employment status of the appointed official, who was serving as a faculty member at Imam Sadiq University—a nongovernmental institution. Under Article 47 of the Civil Service Management Act, individuals employed by nongovernmental bodies may not be appointed to official governmental posts; thus, the appointment was alleged to be unlawful. The second argument concerned the incompatibility of concurrently holding academic and governmental executive positions, which the petitioner claimed violated the Law on the Prohibition of Holding More Than One Occupation. These claims form the substantive core of the dispute and are assessed in detail within the article. Beyond these material considerations, the study devotes substantial attention to the procedural and jurisdictional dimension of the rulingnamely, whether the General Board possessed the authority to adjudicate and ultimately annul a high-level executive appointment. By outlining both supportive and critical perspectives, the article explores competing interpretations regarding the scope of the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction and its legitimacy in entering the domain of political appointments. Through this analysis, the research highlights the broader legal and administrative implications of the ruling and contributes to a deeper understanding of the expanding role of judicial oversight in Iran’s administrative governance. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_731685.html Imagine a contract has been concluded between parties A and B for the provision of goods or services. A has incurred 30 units of costs to perform the contract including renting for the workplace, labors and vehicles, procurement of materials and equipment and so on. Taking into account a profit margin of 10 units, A is ready to fulfill his/her obligation. If, however, A is deprived of his/her expected profits due to B’s breach of contract, how much damages suffered by A? In other words what is A’s expectation from the performance of this contract? Does it include only 10 units of net profit he/she has anticipated (Expectation damages) or does it also include the 30 units of costs incurred (reliance damages)? The simple case presented as an example is one of the challenging questions in common law framed as follows: is it possible to simultaneously assess damages based on both expectation and reliance criteria? For a long time, the answer given by prominent scholars and judges was negative with the argument that applying more than one criterion for assessing damages in every case would lead to double/over compensation. Therefore, only one criterion should be applied to evaluate the incurred losses. However, after some time, this objection was addressed bylegalscholars and economists. They clarified that what leads todouble/over compensation is the cases that in which the profits are calculated on a gross basis, however, if calculated on a net basis, awarding compensation for both Incurred costs and expected profits under certain conditions arenot problematic. The only limitation inthisregard is considering the prevention ofdoublerecovery rule. The decisions issuedby arbitrators andjudges analyzed in this article, are among the few notable decisions addressing this issue inIranianlaw though they appear open to criticism due to ambiguities in meeting necessary conditions for calculation some costs. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_731302.html AbstractThe issue of illegal migration and its legal consequences, particularly when children and adolescents are among the migrants, represents one of the most complex challenges for judicial and protective systems worldwide. In Iran, the significant presence of Afghan children and adolescents in uncertain residency situations necessitates special considerations within judicial processes to safeguard both their legal rights and their best interests. The ruling in case number 140168390014576263 by the Tehran Juvenile Court exemplifies this approach; in this decision, the judge prioritized the best interests of the Afghan adolescent involved and issued a judgment aimed at protecting the child’s future and dignity.The ruling reflects a protection-oriented trend in judicial practice, demonstrating that it is possible to reconcile residency requirements with human rights considerations and the developmental needs of adolescents. In the text of the judgment, alongside adherence to public order and legal norms, the impact of the judicial decision on the child’s growth, education, and potential for reintegration or continued social life was taken into account, and appropriate protective measures were implemented accordingly. This approach not only serves the legal interests of the judiciary but also ensures effective fulfillment of international and ethical obligations regarding children’s rights.The experience of this case can provide practical guidance for judges and relevant institutions, enabling them to adopt a realistic and child-centered perspective when handling similar cases, thereby promoting justice while mitigating the vulnerabilities of young migrants. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_733555.html In each issue of the Journal, a formal call is issued to judges of the Iranian judiciary, inviting them to submit their selected judicial decisions for scholarly review and consideration. Following the receipt of submissions and upon the expiration of the designated call period, the submitted decisions undergo a structured evaluation process conducted by the Journal’s reviewers and members of the Editorial Board. This process is designed to assess the legal reasoning, doctrinal significance, and practical impact of each decision.At the conclusion of this evaluative stage, the decision that attains the highest overall score is designated as the Selected Judgment for that issue of the Journal. The judgment published in the present issue has been chosen through this competitive and merit-based process, reflecting its outstanding analytical depth, methodological rigor, and contribution to the development of judicial reasoning and legal doctrine. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_732838.html The nationalization of private banks in Iran in 1979, following the Islamic Revolution and driven by the objective of restructuring the banking system and eliminating usury, triggered a series of complex legal challenges regarding the recognition and protection of shareholders’ legitimate rights. This transformation, while framed as a public interest initiative, led to the deprivation of ownership for many minority shareholders, prompting a wave of legal claims against state-owned banks and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance, which serves as the custodian of government-held shares in these institutions. This study aims to explore the legal foundations and procedural requirements for initiating claims to recover the value of shares following nationalization. It centers on the analysis of a specific judicial ruling issued at both the trial and appellate levels, and incorporates a comprehensive review of relevant legislative instruments, including the 1979 Law on the Administration of Banks and the Draft Law on the Protection of Minority Shareholders. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, the research evaluates the legal reasoning adopted by the courts and the statutory framework governing shareholder rights. The findings underscore that newly established banks, as legal successors to the merged entities, bear the responsibility to compensate shareholders. Furthermore, the referral of such claims to the Ministry lacks a clear statutory mandate and may undermine the principle of legal certainty. Banking notices that purport to extinguish shareholder claims after the statutory deadline of 1982 are found to be inconsistent with the principle of vested rights and cannot, in the absence of explicit legislative authority, nullify legitimate entitlements. The judicial ruling under scrutiny reveals a fundamental tension between collective public interests and individual property rights, particularly in claims seeking both the current market value of shares and delay damages. These claims are deemed legally untenable due to the expropriatory nature of nationalization. The article concludes by advocating for the establishment of clearer legal mechanisms and the explicit legislative recognition of the new banks’ obligation to pay the book value of shares, as a necessary measure to resolve this enduring legal conflict. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_732990.html The entry of generative artificial intelligence into the legal services arena has created unprecedented challenges regarding professional responsibility and judicial ethics. This research examines these challenges from legal, psychological, and technological perspectives using a descriptive-analytical method and a case study of an innovative ruling issued by the First Branch of the Takestan General Court of Law. In this case, the lawyer’s reliance on a fake unanimous verdict generated by artificial intelligence was the basis for an in-depth analysis by the court. This article analyzes the praiseworthy formal structure of the verdict, as well as criticizes the judge’s substantive arguments and his “proactive” approach in the face of a legislative vacuum. The main findings of the research show that the lawyer’s error, in addition to professional negligence, is rooted in cognitive biases such as “automation bias” and the “Dunning-Kruger effect.” Accordingly, it is argued that the lawyer's responsibility in the digital age has shifted from a "commitment to finding information" to a "commitment to ensuring the accuracy of information" through careful verification. This research, with a forward-looking and solution-oriented perspective, presents a preventive framework at two levels: first, technological solutions such as the development of "specialized and explainable legal artificial intelligence" and second, legislative-institutional solutions including the reform of the codes of professional ethics of lawyers and the clarification of the civil liability of AI designers. This article attempts to provide a comprehensive analysis to contribute to the safe and responsible use of this technology in the pursuit of justice. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_733074.html In its Unifying Decision No. 155 dated 14/12/1347, the Supreme Court of Iran held that a bankrupt merchant is not liable for damages arising from delay in the payment of his commercial debts. In subsequent years, divergent judicial opinions emerged regarding the extension of this ruling to the guarantors of a bankrupt merchant. The Supreme Court once again resolved this divergence by issuing Unifying Decision No. 788 dated 27/3/1399, holding that guarantors, like the merchant himself, are exempt from compensating damages for delay in payment. Taken together, these two unifying decisions have created grounds for extensive abuse by certain merchants and have been subject to criticism by capital providers, particularly banks and financial and credit institutions. The present study seeks to answer the question of what constitutes the legal basis for exempting the guarantor from the payment of delay damages, and what criticisms this exemption faces. The findings of this research—conducted through a descriptive–analytical method and based on library resources—indicate that the foundation of such exemption lies in the accessory (dependent) nature of the contract of guarantee (ʿaqd al-ḍamān). Pursuant to certain provisions of the Commercial Code and the Civil Code, and in conformity with Islamic jurisprudence, guarantee is deemed an accessory contract; accordingly, when the principal obligor (maḍmūn ʿanhu, i.e., the merchant) is discharged from payment of the debt, the liability of the guarantor is likewise extinguished. For this reason, the Supreme Court, in the aforementioned decision, ruled in favor of the guarantor’s exemption. Nevertheless, the discharge of the guarantor’s obligation is subject to several criticisms. The most significant criticism concerns the incompatibility of such exemption with the purpose and underlying philosophy of the contract of guarantee. The objective of guarantee is that, should the principal debtor intentionally or due to inability fail to discharge his obligations, the creditor (maḍmūn lahu) may readily recover the debt by recourse to the guarantor. However, if the exemption of the principal debtor from liability for delay damages results in the exemption of the guarantor as well, the fundamental purpose and intent of the guarantee contract are undermined. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_733336.html One of the issues that always puts the collection of bank claims at risk is the departure of the debtor and his guarantors from the country and, consequently, their debt remaining uncollected; for this purpose, one of the measures that the banking network takes against debtors is to prohibit their departure. This prohibition can be pursued by three authorities: criminal authorities in the capacity of issuing a criminal security order, the departments of the execution of official and enforceable documents in the capacity of implementing Article 17 of the Passport Law approved in 1972 and the regulations for the implementation of the provisions of official and enforceable documents, and the Central Bank in the capacity of implementing the bill prohibiting the departure of bank debtors approved in 1979. In the third paragraph, given that prohibiting persons from leaving the country requires obtaining a judicial order, the Central Bank, at the request of the operating banks, requests the prohibition of the departure of debtors from the prosecutor's office, and the prosecutor's office takes action to implement it. Therefore, the nature of this prohibition and the origin of its creation are unclear to the courts and have led to differences in procedure, such that some courts believe that the issue is subject to appeal to the Central Bank, some believe that it is necessary to raise and examine the issue in favor of the acting bank, and some believe that the issue is non-appealable. With this description, the present article attempts to discover the nature of this prohibition through a critical examination of a ruling in this regard. The results of the investigation show that imposing a ban on individuals from leaving the country is a sovereign act, and the Court of Administrative Justice is competent to hear complaints from individuals regarding this matter. Given that the Central Bank notifies the Attorney General of the names of individuals banned from leaving the country, and this bank acts in accordance with the laws in accordance with one of its sovereign powers, if there is a mistake or error in its actions, individuals can file a complaint with the Court of Administrative Justice. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_733630.html One of the significant challenges in judicial proceedings is the inclusion of an improper defendant in lawsuits—an action often undertaken to abuse local jurisdiction rules, particularly Article 16 of the Civil Procedure Code of. In this method, an individual against whom neither a major nor an minor claim is directed, and who plays no role in facilitating the proceedings, is listed as a defendant to enable the plaintiff to bring the claim before a preferred local jurisdiction. A clear example of this issue can be seen in the award issued by 10th Branch of the (General) Civil Court of Hamadan, where the court, having determined that the inclusion of the second defendant was improper, issued an order dismissing the claim against him pursuant to Subsection 4 of Article 84 of the Civil Procedure Code. The present study, focusing on the critique and evaluation of the above-mentioned award, seeks to answer the following question: What is the proper criterion for establishing the existence of a proper defendant in such cases, and what mechanisms exist to counter this practice? Employing a descriptive-analytical method, the study first explains the categories of defendants—including major defendants, minor defendants, and facilitating defendants—and demonstrates that the widely invoked criterion known as “lack of relevance of the claim to the defendant” is insufficient to identify improper defendants. Reliance on this criterion alone is inadequate and may lead to the erroneous classification of a facilitating defendant as improper. Accordingly, the study proposes a negative criterion for identifying improper defendants: a person shall be deemed a improper defendant if he or she fits within none of the categories of major, minor, or facilitating defendants. Moreover, in addition to dismissal and security for costs order, a proper interpretation of Article 16 of the Civil Procedure Code may serve as an effective mechanism to prevent the abuse of local jurisdiction rules through the insertion of improper defendants. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_734072.html The nature of the damage resulting from the cessation of mining activities, given that the owners of the exploitation license have the right to use the relevant mine for a limited and specific period, is considered an example of damage resulting from the loss of possible benefits, the net value of which should be evaluated as accounting profit after deducting the deductible costs. Regarding the damage resulting from the failure to use and depreciation of equipment and machinery in order to launch and complete the sand and gravel production workshop due to the prevention of the completion of the workshop, Given that the aforementioned equipment and machinery have certain, established (existing) benefits that must be realized, preventing their use is considered to be a loss of potential profits from the equipment and machinery, and can be assessed within the framework of accounting profit after deducting the costs that can be accountd for if they are realized. Unless their use in other similar activities is reasonable, low-risk, logical (plannable), and conventional, which is not possible in this case due to the high cost and risk of moving machinery and equipment and the unpredictability of the duration of the obstruction. In contrast, damage resulting from the deprivation of completing the sand and gravel production processing cycle is an example of loss of profit, economic profit, and the subsequent chain of damage from the lack of use of machinery, which is not considered recoverable due to the possibility of its occurrence in future, its unforeseeability, and the inability to rely on the customary law of the harmful act. In contrast, damage resulting from deprivation of completing sand and gravel production processing cycle is an example of loss of benefit, economic benefit, and the subsequent chain of damage from the lack of use of machinery, which is not considered recoverable due to the possibility of its occurrence in future, its unforeseeability, its inability to be attributed to the harmful act https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_734185.html In accordance with the principles governing the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court of Justice, including the previous regulations and the amended law approved in 1402, the examination and objection to the decisions of the specialized administrative authorities are carried out in the form of formal examination. However, the new will of the legislator in the amended law of the Administrative Court of Justice in 1402 has opened a new horizon in the manner of judicial review of these decisions. Although the prevailing practice of the branches of the Court is still based on formal examination. However, Article 64 of the new law establishes an explicit provision. According to this legal article, if the plaintiff requests, the branch of the Court is obliged to review the substantive decision of the specialized administrative authority based on the expert opinion. Selection boards, as one of the most important examples of specialized authorities with votes that are often confidential and based on the judgment of the board members, are not exempt from this provision. Therefore, if the plaintiff's objection is directed at the nature of the "diagnosis" of the selection authority, the branch of the Court will be required to refer the case to an expert and issue a substantive ruling. On the other hand, Articles 34 and 166 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran also emphasize and clarify the right of individuals to appeal as an indisputable right and the reasonedness of court decisions. The present study, using a descriptive-analytical method and with the aim of analyzing the extent to which judicial practice complies with this legal development, criticizes the decision of Branch 29 of the Court of Appeals. The findings show that the aforementioned decision, despite claiming to examine the contents, is in conflict with the principles of fair trial and the reliability of decisions by ignoring the obligation stipulated in Article 64 and failing to argue about the criteria of "choosing the best" https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_734323.html According to the interpretive opinion issued regarding the Note to Article 2 of the Check Issuance Act, a check holder may claim late payment damages, culculated on the basis of the inflation rate, from the maturity date of the check. However, judicial practice was fragmented regarding the determination of the starting point for such calculations. This inconsistency ultimately led to uniform judicial precedent No. 812 of 22 June 2021, rendered by the General Board of the Supreme Court, which established the check’s maturity date as the point of commencement for calculating late payment damages. Nevertheless, certain courts continue to construe the scope of this precedent narrowly in three situations: (1) where the claim is subject to the commercial statute of limitations; (2) where the holder has been tardy in seeking payment; and (3) where the check has been negotiated after the issuance of notice of non-payment.A doctrinal and statutory analysis suggests that the commercial statute of limitations merely bars proceedings against certain parties liable on the instrument, without extinguishing the commercial nature of the check itself. Consequently, a time-barred check, provided that the conditions of Article 319 of the Commercial Act are satisfied, remains enforceable, at least with respect to late payment damages, by virtue of the privileges afforded to commercial instruments. Likewise, a holder’s delay in presenting the check or demanding payment does not, in itself, bar recovery of damages unless such delay is of a kind that, in ordinary legal reasoning, breaks the causal link between the obligor’s non-payment and the resulting loss. Furthermore, negotiation of a check after the issuance of a non-payment certificate, given the broad wording of the Note to Article 21 of the Check Issuance Act, which extends statutory privileges to the “final holder”, preserves the commercial efficacy of the instrument and renders the transferee a lawful holder. Ultimately, it must be said in all of these circumstances, notwithstanding the uniform judicial precedent late payment damages in principle from the cheque’s maturity date is recoverable. inasmuch as the said uniform judicial precedent has come to reduce the divergence of practice in this regard. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_734407.html The concept of loss of profit (loss of expected gains) in Iranian and French lawparticularly within the realm of civil liabilityremains one of the subjects that, despite its extensive application in litigation, continues to face theoretical ambiguities and inconsistencies in judicial practice. In Iranian law, the understanding of loss of profit fluctuates between two contrasting approaches: one that rejects compensation due to the absence of actual materialization of the benefit, and another that, by recognizing the possibility of realizing the benefit, considers it compensable when the benefit is capable of being obtained and the causal link to the harmful act is established. Analysis of the scholarly articles indicates that courts have predominantly emphasized the criterion of certainty of the benefit, thereby drawing a sharp distinction between possible and probable profits. Moreover, the traditional jurisprudential (fiqhbased) perception of lost benefits has significantly influenced judicial reasoning, leading courts to adopt a cautious stance toward awarding such damages. In French law, the distinction between loss of profit and loss of chance forms the central axis of identifying the type of damage. French courts, relying on an assessment of the probability of realizing the benefit, hold that such damage is compensable only when the lost benefit possessed a reasonable and strong likelihood of being realized. In this system, the criteria for evaluating the causal link play a critical role in distinguishing between actual and hypothetical losses, thereby creating a more coherent framework for damage assessment. A comparative study shows that although both systems accept the principle of full compensation, differences in conceptual boundaries, the level of strictness in proof, and the role of judicial precedent in developing evaluative criteria have led the Iranian systemowing to its greater reliance on fiqhbased foundations and judicial cautionto adopt a more restrictive approach toward recognizing loss of profit. By analyzing a specific judicial decision in Iranian law, this article elucidates these differences and offers a structured framework for more accurate evaluation of loss of profit claims. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_734412.html Throughout the history of Iranian aviation and subsequent to the occurrence of some air accidents, we are considering number of enactments regarding the manner of compensation of damage incurred as result of these accidents. Sometimes the said enactments have a limited scope and exclusively have been approved with reference to the specific air accident. In some cases, the relevant enactments are applicable to the past and particular air accident as well as to the future and following accidents. The accident of flight 291 of Iran Air Company at January 21, 1980 could be pointed as an example of the situation. The subject of this article is the critique of a recent judgment with regard to the demanding “diyah” in consequence of that accident. Although the extent of Iran Air Company’s liability for the accident of flight 291 apparently is considered by “the Legislative Bill on the Determining the Extent of National Iranian Air Company’s Liability in the Domestic Flights of Country” (enacted on March 12, 1980) but recently the chamber 180 of Tehran’s Public Civil Court at Shahid Mottahari Judicial Complex has ruled against the both Iran Air Company and Civil Aviation Organization to pay the “diyah” of a deceased passenger in proportion to the share of claimant. In upper process, the judgment of this chamber has been confirmed by the chamber 56 of Appellate Court of Tehran Province. The writer opines that the judgment in hand, i.e. compelling the defendants to pay the “diyah” which was unsettled for several decades, is morally acceptable and reconciles with the principle of non-discrimination. However, in the light of legal rules, the issuance of judgment against the air carrier and Civil Aviation Organization as the operator, controller and regulator of the civil aviation industry in this case, is contestable, either in relation to the primary issue (civil liability itself) or secondary ones. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_734498.html An analytical and comparative review of Judgment concerning compensation for damages resulting from eleven years of wrongful imprisonment reveals the commendable efforts of the courts to transcend traditional interpretations and find solutions for compensating both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages suffered by a victim who, due to flaws in the judicial system or a systemic error, spent a long period in prison, only for their innocence to be proven by a subsequent ruling. An analysis of two fundamental challenges in the mentioned judgments indicates that, first, the court's decision to assert jurisdiction over the case, despite not following the formalities stipulated in Article 30 of the Law on the Supervision of Judges' Conduct and the Unifying Judgment No. 791 by the Supreme Court, was substantively correct, even though the judgments lack appropriate reasoning for the court's jurisdictional claim. Secondly, compensation for the pecuniary damage resulting from wrongful imprisonment, based on the "minimum wage of an unskilled worker" and grounded in the fact that the claimant did not allege or prove additional damage, is not entirely inappropriate. However, considering the inadequacy of the declared minimum wage to cover living expenses and its devaluation over time, it would have been preferable for the court to employ other criteria for full compensation. In contrast, French jurisprudence readily awards compensation for loss of income and wages, loss of real opportunities for earning, employment, and economic prospects, as well as ancillary costs. Furthermore, setting a daily compensation of 250,000 IRR for each day of wrongful imprisonment according to Article 529 of the Criminal Procedure Code and treating it as pecuniary damage is open to criticism. On the other hand, the court's introduction of the concept of “spiritual death” represents a significant step toward comprehensive damage compensation. However, it would have been more appropriate to set a full diya (blood money) solely for the psychological damage caused by the experience of facing execution, while for the 11 years of imprisonment, considering factors such as the length of detention, the victim's age, the presence or absence of a prior criminal record, prison conditions, the impact of detention on personal and family reputation and dignity—criteria also employed in French law—would have justified a higher compensation. Additionally, the judgment lacks a ruling for the non-pecuniary compensation of moral damages, such as the obligation to apologize to the victim or to publish the ruling in websites and newspapers. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_735003.html One of the difficulties in the Law of damages and tort law is distinguishing between the two concepts of “Loss of profit” and “Loss of chance / Opportunity to gain or making profit” (in other words, Loss of Profitability), regarding the sale of a product (goods, Intellectual property, etc.) which have significant differences both theoretically and practically. The similarity between these two concepts is such that many researchers and judges in their issued judgments, either consider them identical or use these terms interchangeably without attention and focus to their distinctions. If the product that has been sold is a film, such a distinction becomes even more difficult due to certain characteristics of this type of product: 1. The intangible nature of such assets before production (movie-making) 2. Non - deceasing of asset value and 3. High uncertainty until release. The judgment under analysis here is among those that, while rejecting any award of damages to the plaintiff due to the specific circumstances of this case and also because of analysising the case just as intellectual property law without considering to other dimension especially law of damages, clearly demonstrates a conflation of these two concepts in the language used. Therefore, on the occasion of its issuance, the opportunity was taken to – based on library research and using a comparative - analytical approach distinguish between these two concepts of damages in general to examine their application to losses incurred in the field of the film production. The findings of this research indicate that, for applying these two damages in this specific context, distinguishing between pre-production and post-production stages is essential. Also, accepting a broad interpretation of the "property" as well as the moral dimensions of personalities in accordance with the requirements of today's world, is another suggestion that can be presented in this regard. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_735271.html Juvenile Court and Adolescent Facilitation of Prostitution: A Case Analysis from Juvenile Court of Tehran AbstractCorruption and prostitution constitute serious threats to the physical and psychological health as well as the future of adolescents. In Iran, adolescents are sometimes identified not only as victims but also as facilitators of offences related to Article 639 of the Islamic Penal Code; a role often shaped under the influence of familial, social, and environmental factors. This study, employing a case-study method, analyzes and evaluates a judgment issued by Branch 3 of the Juvenile Court of Tehran in a case involving a 16-year-old Afghan national accused of providing the means for corruption and prostitution. The presiding judge, relying on psychological and social expert reports, the invalidation of confessions obtained under duress, the presumption of innocence, and the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (in particular Articles 3 and 40), acquitted the defendant and ordered her placement under the care of the State Welfare Organization for the implementation of supportive and rehabilitative interventions (weekly counseling, continuation of education, and monthly monitoring). The judgment’s strengths include its systematic structure, prioritization of the best interests of the child, and recourse to non-custodial alternative measures. However, shortcomings are also evident, such as insufficient legal analysis of the constitutive elements of the offence under Article 639, failure to pursue accountability of investigative officers and the preliminary investigating judge despite explicit criticism of their conduct, and inadequate consideration of the family’s supportive capacity. The fact that the accused was an Afghan national in practice severely limited access to family members and a suitable legal guardian, leading the court to opt for direct referral to the Welfare Organization; this highlights the necessity of adopting special procedures for vulnerable migrant juveniles within the judicial process. The findings of this research can serve as a basis for rethinking the juvenile criminal justice system, strengthening the rehabilitative perspective, and enhancing prevention of future delinquency among adolescents.Keywords: Corruption and prostitution, adolescents, juvenile justice, rehabilitation, juvenile court. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_735519.html This study employs a documentary, descriptive, and analytical research methodology to examine the judicial verdict which addresses civil liability arising from a physician’s diagnostic and procedural error in the termination of a pregnancy — specifically, the wrongful termination of a fetus with thalassemia minor while retaining a fetus with thalassemia major, a condition legally eligible for therapeutic abortion. The primary objective of this research is to assess the legal legitimacy of claims for material and non-material damages by the parents and the subsequently born child, following the physician’s negligence in identifying and executing a legally permissible therapeutic abortion. This study demonstrates that the harm suffered is not a bodily injury attributable to the physician’s direct conduct, but rather a civil wrong stemming from the deprivation of a legally recognized opportunity to terminate a pregnancy under statutory conditions. Consequently, the application of diyah and ‘arsh (compensation for bodily impairment) — legal remedies designed exclusively for bodily harm resulting from direct or contributory fault — is both inappropriate and legally unsound, as the thalassemia major and associated limb malformations are congenital and genetically determined, with no causal link to the physician’s actions. Nevertheless, a clear conventional causal nexus is established between the physician’s negligence and the resulting damages, as the failure to perform a lawful abortion directly deprived the parents of their statutory right to avoid the birth of a severely affected child. The trial court, however, erroneously relied on diyah as a compensatory mechanism, thereby overlooking the conventional causal relationship and imposing a lump-sum compensation without distinguishing between the parents’ and the child’s distinct damages, or accounting for the lifelong, continuous nature of the harm. Although the appellate court correctly affirmed the jurisdiction of civil courts over such claims and explicitly recognized non-material damages, it abstained from providing an operational framework for ongoing, periodic compensation. The study concludes that the legal recognition of therapeutic abortion establishes a corresponding legal right to claim damages when that right is unlawfully denied due to physician negligence. Compensation for such harm must therefore not be calculated through the rigid, lump-sum model of diyah, but rather through a dynamic, periodic, and expert-based assessment aligned with the evolving medical, financial, and psychosocial needs of the child and family over their lifetime. https://analysis.illrc.ac.ir/article_735563.html The present study analyzes the unanimous decision No. 811 of the Supreme Court of Iran to examine the foundations of the theory of profit-making fault and its adaptation to the structure of French civil law. The aforementioned decision, in requiring the seller to pay the current price of the property of the third party in the event of the invalidity of the sale, goes beyond the level of compensation for material damage and focuses on the deprivation of undue benefit from the offender. Such an orientation shows that the logic of decision 811 is inspired by the principles of distributive justice and, in practice, directs the Iranian civil liability system towards economic deterrence. This development marks a transition from traditional exchange justice to a system that aims to restore economic balance by eliminating illegitimate profit and linking individual justice and social justice. In French law, the change in the idea of ​​civil liability towards economic justice has caused the judge, faced with behaviors that create illegitimate profit, to order the return of that profit so that the incentive to exploit the rules of law is eliminated. This approach, centered on the principle of balance and fairness, has transformed compensation from a personal form into a social duty, and thus has removed civil justice from a passive state and placed it in a deterrent position. In Imami jurisprudence, the principle of non-profit guarantee and the principle of "to whom the goods belong" confirm this foundation and state that any unjustified benefit creates an obligation to compensate. A comparison between the two legal systems of Iran and France reveals that both are moving towards establishing economic justice and preventing unjustified profit, and the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court No. 811 can be considered the first step in accepting the idea of ​​pecuniary fault in the Iranian legal system. The innovation of this research is crystallized in presenting an applied model for reviewing the law of civil liability and explaining the role of the judge in the deprivation of unjustified benefit.