نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
Introduction
Undoubtedly, this statement by Holmes, the American pioneer of the realist school, who believed that legal knowledge comes from experience rather than logic, should be taken to heart. This concept emphasizes the significant role of on-the-ground circumstances in shaping the legal challenges users face within the judicial system. This process doubles the importance and status of judicial procedure in any legal system. Because, contrary to legal doctrine or legal etiquette, a solution must be proposed to overcome it so the court's decision can be considered a major step toward ending the existing conflict.
One of these challenges, which of course has been exacerbated by the economic conditions of the last decade, concerns how to evaluate claims that, beyond being common, can evolve over time. A well-established example is the daily rate compensation claim, as outlined in Unanimous Decision No. 811. In this case and old examples such as the payment of the days of possession or the right to acquire or trade or profession of the tenant, the subject of the Landlord-Tenant Relations Law of 1977, or the demand for a fair price for land that has been seized in the implementation of the Law on the Manner of Purchase and Acquisition of Lands, enacted in 1979, and the Additional Note thereto, enacted in 2009, The plaintiff, and occasionally the defendant, seek to determine the value corresponding to the day or the time of enforcement of the judgment so that, on this basis, they can confidently manage their financial affairs through shocks such as unchecked inflation. However, the customary and selected method in current judicial practice does not indicate a favorable response to this logical tendency and to the rights of the litigants mentioned above. On this basis, after recognizing the plaintiff's and defendant's right to payment, the court begins the evaluation process, which is always accompanied by an expert opinion and includes its final result in the operative part of the judgment. This approach, whose efficacy has admittedly been considerably diminished today, has at least two consequences.
First, the final price stated by the court in its decision and the amount the plaintiff or defendant is instructed to pay invariably diverge significantly from prevailing economic inflation. This will never satisfy the convict and will force him to take another step to compensate for this deficiency, relying on legal bases such as the Note to Article 19 of the 2002 Law on Official Experts of the Judiciary, to undertake yet another initiative to remedy this deficiency. Such conduct will, needless to say, increase the frequency of litigation. Second, the prolongation of judicial proceedings, or what is commonly known as “undue delay in proceedings,” will be among the direct consequences of the proposed method. This is because repeated expert examinations in the course of judicial proceedings will prolong the proceedings. This will prolong the litigation process through successive expert opinions.
Given the widespread recognition of the inefficiency inherent in traditional methodologies, it is imperative to take corrective measures and develop innovative strategies to avert their detrimental effects. The pertinent inquiry then arises: what actions should be pursued? The approach proposed in this research, significantly influenced by the author's experience as a judge and daily case analyst, introduces the concept of "mixed or hybrid judgments." This term, as suggested by its name, derives from the fusion of “judgment" and "order.” Consequently, a court’s decision possesses a dual nature; it functions as a judgment by delineating rights and providing a definitive stance on the validity of claims and proceedings, and simultaneously as an “order” since it entrusts the assessment of the claimant’s or defendant’s entitlement to an expert—an assessment to be overseen during the execution phase, in accordance with the provisions of Article 75 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Law.
Method
This research used a descriptive-analytical method to analyze the subject. However, unlike in other studies, the required data were mainly derived from court decisions and judicial procedures, and library resources were used mainly to strengthen the scientific support for the study's proposal.
Conclusions
“Mixed judgment" is an emerging concept identified within litigation law, and its application aligns with the core principles of civil procedural law. This institution is a logical response aligned with the common understanding of justice, where users expect the court's decision—especially in cases subject to significant changes due to economic inflation—to efficiently prevent the need to reopen cases that could result in detrimental effects such as increased economic costs and extended durations. Such an outcome is attainable through the unified criteria outlined in Article 46 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Act and the mechanism established in Article 75 of the same law.
کلیدواژهها English
