نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
Introduction
Discussions of interpretation primarily concern contracts, whether drafted as ordinary documents or formal deeds. In legal scholarship, interpretation typically focuses on contracts and their performance; the aim is to uncover the parties' true intent using established rules. Similarly, statutory interpretation seeks to ascertain the legislator's intent. Thus, the objective in interpreting contracts is first to discover the parties' intent, or—failing that—to interpret the contract according to rules accepted by custom and the practices of reasonable people; likewise, the goal of statutory interpretation is to uncover the legislator's intent or, if that is not possible, to interpret the law based on reason and custom. Iranian law contains no explicit provision on interpreting court judgments. It appears to be assumed that judgments require no interpretation, as the judge—possessing comprehensive knowledge of the law and the case file—would not issue a ruling containing ambiguities or contradictions. In reality, however, court judgments can be ambiguous, vague, or contain contradictory and irreconcilable sections; consequently, interpreting a judgment sometimes becomes unavoidable. When a judgment inevitably requires interpretation, how should it be construed in light of procedural rules and principles? The Iranian Code of Civil Procedure is silent on this matter and offers no direct answer; however, the law does authorize the court to rectify a judgment in cases involving clerical errors, slips of the pen, the omission or addition of words, or calculation errors. (Article 309 of the Civil Procedure Code) Given the possibility of ambiguity, vagueness, or contradiction within various parts of a judgment (Clause 3, Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Code), and considering the shared rationale between the correction and the interpretation of a judgment, it would have been preferable for the Civil Procedure Code to explicitly provide for the interpretation of judgments and the associated procedure. Although the Law on the Enforcement of Civil Judgments contains provisions (Articles 26, 27, and 29) regarding disputes over the content of a judgment, as well as the resolution of conflicts arising from its enforcement, it remains silent on the procedure for resolving ambiguity and vagueness, the nature of the court's decision in this regard, and the method of challenging such a decision. The Criminal Procedure Code (Article 497) rightly designates the court that issued the final judgment as the authority for resolving ambiguity and vagueness, and the enforcement judge as the authority for resolving enforcement-related issues; however, it does not specify the procedural rules for resolving ambiguity and vagueness or the nature of the court's decision.
Methodology
This article examines the concept of a judgment, the need to interpret court judgments, and the interpretation of settlement agreements (recorded by the court), arbitral awards, and foreign court judgments (where Iranian courts consider recognition or enforcement). Since the author holds the view that the interpretation of a court judgment must follow civil procedure rules—and that the resulting court decision constitutes an "interpretative judgment"—this article also discusses the procedure and time limits for requesting an interpretation, the requirements for such a request, the competent court, the scope of interpretation, and the methods for challenging these decisions. Given that the Iranian Code of Civil Procedure is silent regarding the procedure for requesting the interpretation of a judgment and the nature of the court's decision thereon, the interpretation of judgments—as well as the associated procedures and the nature of the court's ruling—has been examined within the context of French law to serve as a model for researchers and legislators.
Conclusions
Iranian Code of Civil Procedure is silent regarding the interpretation of judicial rulings, the governing procedure, the nature of the court's decision on interpretation, and the applicable rules. This silence has led legal scholars and judicial practice to frequently equate interpreting a ruling with disputes arising from the enforcement of judgments. However, ambiguity or lack of clarity in a ruling does not always result in enforcement disputes; for instance, a court may be asked to interpret final orders or declaratory judgments (pursuant to Article 4, Clause 2 of the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments), or a ruling might be submitted as evidence in a separate lawsuit, compelling the court hearing that case to interpret the ruling. Similar considerations apply to interpreting foreign court judgments sought to be enforced in Iran, domestic and foreign arbitral awards, and settlement agreements recorded by the court. Therefore, it is proposed that the Code of Civil Procedure be amended to clearly define the obligations and procedures for interpreting rulings, mirroring the approach taken in the Code of Criminal Procedure. To guide legislators, legal scholars, judges, and attorneys, this article also examines the French Code of Civil Procedure and the rules governing the interpretation of rulings under French law, offering a resource should the legislature decide to amend the law.
کلیدواژهها English
