ارزیابی دسترسی به دادگستری در نظام دادرسی مدنی ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

2 استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌الملل دانشگاه علوم قضایی و خدمات اداری

3 دانش‌آموختۀ دکتری حقوق خصوصی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده

دسترسی به دادگستری و عدالت را باید یکی از اصول بنیادین در دادرسی مدنی برشمرد. این اصل را می‌توان به اعتبار دسترسی عینی و دسترسی کیفی به دادگستری تحلیل کرد. منظور از دسترسی عینی، تخصیص صحیح امکانات و منابع از طریق نظام توزیع صلاحیت‌ها، توسعۀ نظام‌مند فضاهای فیزیکی و جز آن به‌منظور کارامدی ساختار قضایی است. مراد از دسترسی کیفی، دادرسی منصفانه در مدت زمان معقول و متعارف و بدون تأخیر ناروا، با هزینۀ متعارف و در نهایت دستیابی به جبران متناسب و قابل اجرا بودن نتیجۀ حاصله است. به‌عبارت دیگر، درصورتی‌که دستیابی به دادگستری ارزان و کیفیت آیین دادرسی و نتیجۀ آن در سطح بالایی باشد، میتوان گفت که آن دادگستری در دسترستر است. حال اینکه چگونه میتوان دادگستری در دسترس را از غیرقابل دسترس تشخیص داد، از کاربران واقعی دادگستری سؤال می‌شود تا تجارب و ارزیابی آنها از هزینهها و کیفیت بررسی شود. بنابراین، تأکید پژوهش بر رویکرد کاربرمحور بوده و یافته‌ها براساس مصاحبه با کاربران واقعی دادگستری ارائه شده است. روش تحقیق توصیفی تحلیلی و شیوۀ گردآوری اطلاعات علاوه‌بر کتابخانه‌ای و اسنادی، مراجعه به جامعۀ آماری به‌وسیلۀ پرسشنامه است. نتایج حاصل از گردآوری داده‌ها حاکی از آن است که کیفیت آیین دادرسی و کیفیت نتیجۀ دادرسی از دید کاربران در حد مطلوب است، ولی هزینه‌های دادخواهی (اعم از هزینۀ مالی، هزینۀ فرصت و هزینۀ نامشهود) بالاتر از میانگین و نامطلوب است. کاهش مدت زمان رسیدگی و ارائۀ احکامی با کیفیت بالا و هزینۀ متعارف برای مردم از راه‌های تضمین اصل دسترسی به دادگستری در نظام دادرسی مدنی ایران است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM OF IRAN

نویسندگان [English]

  • Morteza Shahbazinia 1
  • Mojtaba Hemmati 2
  • Seddigeh Javan 3
1 Associate Professor of Private Law, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Public Law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran
3 PhD in Private Law, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Access to justice should be outlined as one of the fundamental principles in the Civil Procedure. It is an indicator of efficient judiciary and a measure of social justice. Access to justice can be analyzed in terms of physical access and qualitative access. The purpose of physical access is to perform the proper allocation of facilities and resources through the distribution system of qualifications, the systematic development of physical spaces, and so on. By the way, this can make the judicial system more efficient. Qualitative access is a fair trial within a reasonable time, without undue delay, with standard costs, and ultimately achieving the appropriate compensation and enforceability of the result. In other words, if access to justice is inexpensive and quality of procedure and outcome is at a high level, it can be said that the justice is more readily accessible. Real users try to diagnose accessible justice to examine their experiences of costs and quality. The measurement is done by examining three features of dispute settlement: costs, quality of procedure and quality of outcome. Therefore, this research emphasizes on user-centric approach and the findings are presented based on interviews with actual judicial users. The research method is descriptive-analytical with a library and documents survey that referred to the survey population through questionnaires. The results of the data showed that quality of procedure and quality of outcome is desirable from perspective of users but costs (such as financial costs, opportunity costs and intangible costs) are undesirable. Effective and efficient services require investment in time and quality to reduce the length of the proceedings and provide high quality sentences. The usual cost to people can guarante the access to justice in Iran's civil justice system.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Access to justice
  • Civil justice system of Iran
  • Costs
  • Quality of procedure
  • Quality of outcome
الف) فارسی
1. قاری سیدفاطمی، سید محمد (1388). حقوق بشر در جهان معاصر، دفتر دوم: جستارهایی تحلیلی از حق‌ها و آزادی‌ها، تهران: شهر دانش.
2. محسنی، حسن (1396). «اصل دسترسی به عدالت و حق دادخواهی دولت»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دورۀ 47، ش 3.
3.---------- (1389). ادارۀ جریان دادرسی مدنی، شرکت سهامی انتشار.
4.---------- (1387). «عدالت آیینی: پژوهشی پیرامون نظریه‌های دادرسی عادلانۀ مدنی»، فصلنامۀ حقوق، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دورۀ 38، ش 1.
 
ب) خارجی
5. Adams, J. S . (1965). “Inequity in social exchange”, Advances in experimental social psychology ,Vol. 2.
6. Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: the influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, Vol. 1, No. 2.
7. Brand A. R, (2012). “Access to Justice Analysis on a due Process Platform”, Columbia Law Review, Forthcoming U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-01. at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=198465.
8. Carr, C. L. (1981). The concept of formal justice. Philosophical Studies, Vol. 39, No. 3.
9. CEPEJ (2011). “Access to Justice in Europe”, reported by the research team on enforcement of court decisions, 8th meeting.
10. Coleman, J. (2003). Risks and wrongs. Oxford: Oxford UP.
11. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 3.
12. Cotter, T. F. (1996). Legal Pragmatism and the Law and Economics Movement. Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 84, No. 6.
13. Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S., (2003). “The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 7, No. 4.
14. Dolan, p. & Loomes, G. & Peasgood, T. & Tsuchiya, A., (2005). “Estimating the Intangible Victim Costs of Violent Crime”, The British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 45, Issue 6, 1 No. 2005, pp. 958–976.
15. Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J. A., & Eavey, C. L. (1987). “Laboratory Results on Rawls’s distributive justice”, British Journal of political Sciences, Vol. 17, No. 1.
16. Gramatikov, M. & Barendrecht, M. & Laxminarayan, M & Verdonschot, J. H. & Klaming, L & Zeeland, C. V., (2009). A Handbook of Measuring the Cost and Quality of Paths to Justice, Maklu & Tilburg Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies of Civil Law and Conflict Resolution Systems, Maklu- Publishers.
17. Gramatikov, M., (2012). Costs and Quality of Online Dispute Resolution, Maklu publishers.
18. Greenberg, J. (1987). “Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1, No. 2.
19. Klaming, L. & Giesen, I., (2008). Access to Justice: the Quality of the Procedure, TISCO Working Paper Series on Civil Law and Conflict Resolution Systems, No. 002/2008, February, 2008, Version: 1.0.
20. Konow, J. (2003). “Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 41, No. 4.
21. Lamm, H., & Schwinger, T. (1980). “Norms concerning distributive justice: Are needs taken into consideration in allocation decisions ?”, Social psychology of proceduraljustice, Vol. 43, No. 4.
22. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). “The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations”, Advances in experimentalsocial psychology, Vol. 9.
23. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, New York: Plenum.
24. Lind, E. A., Maccoun, R. J., Ebener, P. A., Felstiner, W. L. F., Hensler, D. R., Resnik, J., & Tyler, T, R. (1990). “In the eye of the beholder: tort litigants’ evaluations of their experiences in the civil justice system”, Law and Society Review, Vol. 24, No. 4.
25. Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & De Vera Park, M. V. (1993). “Individual and corporate dispute resolution: using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2.
26. Mikula, G., Scherer, K. R., & Athenstaedt, U. (1998). “The Role of Injustice in the Elicitation of Differential Emotional Reactions”, Pers Soc Psychol Bull, Vol. 24, No. 7.
27. Mohseni, H., (2008). Procedural Justice: A Study on Fair Civic Justice Theories, Journal of Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Vol. 38, No. 1. (in Persian)
28. Novemsky, N., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2004). What Makes Negotiators Happy? The Differential Effects of Internal and External Social Comparisons on Negotiator Satisfaction, p. 8. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=524805.
29. O’Hear, M. M. (2008). “Plea bargaining and procedural justice”, Georgia Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 2.
30. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of Justice, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
31. Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (1994). “Explanations: what factors enhance their perceived adequacy?”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 58, Issue. 3.
32. Tyler, T. R. (1984). Op. cit., p. 56; Tyler, T. R. (1996). “The relationship of the outcome and procedural fairness: how does knowing the outcome influence judgments about the procedure?”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 9, No. 4.
33. Tyler, T. R. (1984). “The role of perceived injustice in defendants’ evaluations of their courtroom experience”, Law and Society Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, 51-74.
34. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
35. Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. (1996). “The consistency rule and the voice effect: the influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgments and performance”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 3.
36. Verdonschot, J. H., Barendrecht, M., Klaming, L. & Kamminga, P., (2008), Measuring Access to Justice: The Quality of Outcomes, TISCO Working Paper Series on Civil Law and Conflict Resolution Systems No. 007/2008 November 10, 2008, Version: 1.0 & Tilburg University Legal Studies Working Paper No. 014/2008.
37. Wenzel, M. (2006). “A letter from the tax office: compliance effects of informational and interpersonal justice”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 19, No. 3.