تحولات حقوق ایران و آمریکا در مقابله با دعاوی و دفاعیات واهی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

در ادبیات حقوقی کشورمان، زمانی که بحث مقابله با دعوای واهی مطرح می‌شود، قرار تأمین خسارات خوانده (موضوع ماده 109 قانون آیین دادرسی مدنی) در ذهن تجلی پیدا می‌کند. این وضعیت، اکنون این پرسش را در ذهن نویسندگان ایجاد کرده است: آیا مقابله با دعوای واهی پس از سپری شدن حدود یک قرن از وضع نخستین قوانین و مقررات آیینی نظیر «قوانین موقتی اصول محاکمات حقوقی» به‌یکباره در ماده 109 قانون آیین دادرسی مدنی مطرح شده است یا این امر سابقه‌ای دیرینه دارد؟ اگر وجه اخیر صحیح است، چه اقداماتی از سوی قانون‌گذار جهت مقابله با دعاوی واهی صورت گرفته است؟ همچنین، از آنجا که وصف واهی صرفاً به دعوای واهی منسوب نبوده، بلکه دفاع واهی را نیز دربرمی‌گیرد، قانون‌گذار ایرانی چه اقداماتی جهت مقابله با دفاعیات واهی انجام داده است؟ پاسخ به این پرسش‌ها در کنار مطالعه قواعد فدرال آیین دادرسی مدنی آمریکا، رسالت اصلی این نوشتار می‌باشد. در این نوشتار، با روش توصیفی-تحلیلی این نتیجه حاصل می‌شود که در حقوق آمریکا، مقابله با دعاوی و دفاعیات واهی که از سال 1938 آغاز شده، پس از اصلاحات فراوان، امروزه منجر به وضع مقرراتی منسجم در این زمینه گشته است. در سوی دیگر، هر‌چند انسجامی که در قواعد فدرال آیین دادرسی مدنی وجود دارد، در حقوق ایران ملاحظه نمی‌گردد، تلاش‌هایی جهت مقابله با دعاوی واهی در سطوح کیفری، حرفه‌ای، انضباطی و مدنی صورت گرفته است. در خصوص دفاعیات واهی نیز، با اینکه گویا قانون‌گذار هیچ‌گاه دفاع واهی را به‌عنوان یکی از واقعیت‌های شایع نظام دادرسی مدنی مد‌نظر نداشته، می‌توان با دقت‌نظر در مقررات موجود و اصطیاد برخی نکات، به مقابله با دفاعیات واهی پرداخت.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Developments of Iranian and American Law in Dealing with Frivolous Claims and Defenses

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ehsan Bahramy 1
  • Mostafa Elsan 2
1 Ph.D Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

In the Iranian legal system, when the discussion of dealing with frivolous claims is brought up, the security for costs of the defendant (the subject of Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code) comes to mind. This situation has now created this question in the mind of the authors: Can we imagine dealing with frivolous claims only after enacting the aforementioned code or does this matter have a long history? If the latter is correct, what efforts have been done by the legislator to deal with frivolous claims? Furthermore, since the concept of frivolous is not only related to claims but also includes defenses, what efforts has the Iranian legislator done to deal with frivolous defenses? Answering these questions, along with the study of American Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is the main mission of this article. In this article, with the analytical-descriptive method, it is concluded that in American law, dealing with frivolous claims and defenses that started in 1938, after many reforms, today leads to a coherent rule. On the other hand, although coherence of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not observed in Iranian law, some efforts have been made to deal with frivolous claims at the criminal, professional, disciplinary, and civil levels. Regarding frivolous defenses, although it seems that the legislator never considered frivolous defense as one of the common challenges of the judicial proceedings, it is possible to deal with frivolous defenses by current statutes to some extent.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Litigation Fees
  • Frivolous Claim
  • Frivolous Defense
  • Sanction
  • Rule 11
  • Amerioon, Q., (1960), Commentary on Article 225 of the Civil Procedure Code, Journal of Bar Association, Vol. 71, pp. 10-12. [In Persian]
  • Award No. 0132 Dated 20/05/2012 Issued by the 85th Branch of Tehran General (Civil) Court. [In Persian]
  • Award No. 140012390001391734 Dated 19/05/2021 Issued by the 9th Branch of Shiraz General (Civil) Court. [In Persian]
  • Award No. 140168390017875077 Dated 26/02/2023 Issued by the 142nd Branch of the Civil Court of the Specialized Judicial Complex for Hearing Commercial Claims in Tehran. [In Persian]
  • Award No. 9909972400400342 Dated 14/06/2020 Issued by the 4th Branch of Zanjan General (Civil) Court. [In Persian]
  • Badpa, Sahar; Heidari, Sirous, (2021), Abuse of Procedural Rights in Legal System of Iran and England. Journal of Medical Law, Vol. 15, pp. 551-566. [In Persian]
  • Bahramy Ehsan; Elsan Mostafa, (2022), The Criterion for Identifying Frivolous Claim in Iranian and English Law; A Precondition for Security of Costs Order and Striking Out the Claim, Comparative Law Research Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 29-52. [In Persian]
  • Burger-Smith, Nancy, (1989), Avoiding Sanctions under Federal Rule 11: A Lawyer's Guide to the "New" Rule”, William Mitchell Law Review. Vol. 15, pp. 607-641.
  • Cain, Karen Kessler, (1994), Frivolous Litigation, Discretionary Sanctioning and a Safe Harbor: The 1993 Revision of Rule 11, University of Kansas Law Review. Vol. 43, pp. 207-232.
  • Cowan, David M., (1989), Rule 11: What Is Reasonable - What Is Proper, American Journal of Trial Advocacy, Vol. 13, pp. 729-746.
  • Dehqani Firouzabadi, H. (2020). Good Faith in Civil Procedure. Theran: Sahami-ye Enteshar. [In Persian]
  • Eftekhar Jahromi, G.; Elsan, M. (2022), Civil Procedure. Vol. 3. Tehran: Mizan. [In Persian]
  • Eisenberg, Theodore; Miller, Geoffrey, (2013). The English Versus the American Rule on Attorney Fees: An Empirical Study of Public Company Contracts, Cornell Law Review. Vol. 98, pp. 327-382.
  • Elsan, Mostafa, Fathi, Mohammadreza, (2022), Frivolous Claims: Concept and Strategies to Reduce (A Comparative Study of the Case Law of Iran and the US Law). Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 6, pp. 23-38. [In Persian]
  • FallahZade, Ali Mohammad, Darvish Motavalli, Meysam, (2013), Guardian Council Supervision on the Laws Enacted Before the Revolution and by the Revolutionary Council, Public Law Knowledge Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 103-122. [In Persian]
  • Farsian, Mohamadreza, (2023), Pathology and Review of the Desired Status of Religious Supervision Reflecting on the Validity of the Religious Fatwas of the Jurists of the Guardian Council, Majlis and Rahbord, Vol. 30, pp. 85-109. [In Persian]
  • Fowler v. Towse, 900 F. Supp. (S.D. Fla. 1995).
  • Friedenthal, Jack; Miller, Arthur; Sexton, John; Hershkoff, Helen. (2013). Civil Procedure - Cases and Materials. Minnesota: West Academic Publishing.
  • Hewlett, Sydney B., (1996), New Frivolous Litigation Law in Texas: The Latest Development in the Continuing Saga, Baylor Law Review. Vol. 48, pp. 421-468.
  • Lee Nelken, Melissa, (1986). Sanctions Under Amended Federal Rule 11–Some "Chilling" Problems in the Struggle Between Compensation and Punishment, The Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 74, pp. 1313-1369.
  • Letter No. 0235 Dated 09/09/1990, Deputy Secretary of the Constitutional Council. [In Persian]
  • Letter No. 3127 Dated 12/05/1990, President of the Supreme Court. [In Persian]
  • Letter No. 78/21/4911 Dated 29/06/1999, Secretary of the Constitutional Council. [In Persian]
  • Malakouti, R. (2020). Civil Procedure. Vol. 3. Tehran: Khorsandi. [In Persian]
  • Marcus, Richard; Rowe, Thomas. (2008). Gilbert Law Summaries. Chicago: Thomson/West.
  • Mauro, Richard P., (2007), The Chilling Effect That The Threat of Sanctions Can Have on Effective Representation in Capital Cases, Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 36, pp. 417-434.
  • Mazurczak, Michael J., (1988), Critical Analysis of Rule 11 Sanctions in the Seventh Circuit, Marquette Law Review, Vol. 72, pp. 91-119.
  • MHC Inv. Co. v. Racom Corp., 323 F.3d (8th Cir. 2003).
  • MirMuhammad Sadeqi, H. (2015). Offences Against Property. Tehran: Mizan. [In Persian]
  • Mohajeri, A. (2018). Mabsoot Procedure Civil. Vol. 2. Tehran: Fekrsazan. [In Persian]
  • Murdock v. Stout, 54 F.3d (9th Cir. 1995).
  • Nezamolmolki, Jafar; Jahanshahloo, Masoumeh, (2021). Competence of Concurrent Prehension Securement of Baseless Lawsuits and Securement of Foreigners in Iranian Law and with a Look to Judicial Procedure. Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 13, pp. 259-285. [In Persian]
  • Profile Publishing & Management Corp. APS v. Musicmaker.com, Inc. (2003)
  • Qolizadeh, Ahad, (2016), A Legal Analysis on Security for Costs in Probate Matters. Private Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 46, pp. 285-304. [In Persian]
  • Rowe, Thomas D. Jr., (1982), The Legal Theory of Attorney Fee Shifting: A Critical Overview, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 651-680.
  • Shams, A. (2007). Civil Procedure (Advanced Course). Vol. 3. Tehran: Derak. [In Persian]
  • Smith v. United Transp. Union Local No. 81 (1984)
  • Solovy, Jerold S.; Hirsch, Norman; Simpson, Margaret. (2010). Sanctions Under Rule 11. Chicago, Illinois: Jenner & Block LLP.
  • Subrin, Stephen; Minow, Martha; Brodin, Mark; Main, Thomas; Lahav, Alexandra. (2021). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with Resources for Study 2021-2022, New York: Wolters Kluwer.
  • Sultani, S.N. (2022). The Principles of Legal Trials (Lessons of Mirza Muhammad Boroujerdi. Tehran: Sahami-ye Enteshar. [In Persian]
  • United States v. Alexander, 981 F.2d (5th Cir. 1993).
  • Vairo, Georgene, (1998), Rule 11 and the Profession, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 67, pp. 589-648.
  • Vakil, A.S, Askari, P. (2015), Constitutional in the Current Legal Order. Tehran: Majd. [In Persian]
  • Vargo, John F., (1993), The American Rule on Attorney Fee Allocation: The Injured Person's Access to Justice, American University Law Review, Vol. 42, pp. 1567-1636.
  • Ward, James, (1991), Rule 11 and Factually Frivolous Claims - The Goal of Cost Minimization and the Client's Duty to Investigate, Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 44, pp. 1165-1207.
  • Yeazell, Stephen; Schwartz, Joanna. (2018). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with Selected Statutes, Cases, and Other Materials. New York: Wolters Kluwer.