Comparative Law Researches

Comparative Law Researches

Distinguishing the Fact from the Law in the Process of Issuing Supreme Court’s Decision (Case Study of Decision No. 847-25/2/1403)

Authors
Javad Hosseinzadeh 1
Hossein Qahari 2
1 Assistant professor in Private Law, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran
2 Postdoctoral Research Fellow of Queen Mary University of London, Department of Private Law, Tehran, Iran
10.48311/CLR.29.3.3
Abstract
After the issuance of Supreme Court’s decision No. 847-25/2/1403, some legal scholars have argued that the “interest of the client” is a fact rather than a law, and that this decision represents an encroachment by the general board of supreme court into the realm of “fact.” Since this critique is not new and has been raised in numerous previous decisions, this article seeks to answer the following questions: Is it possible to distinguish between fact dispute and law dispute? What is the criterion for recognizing the supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over the decision of the inferior court? French legal scholars assert that distinguishing between the law and the facts in a court’s verdict is difficult, and it is not always clear whether the disagreement between two authorities pertains to the adjustment of the law or the interpretation of the facts. The correct measure is to separate legal description from judicial interpretation. Therefore, if the disagreement between courts pertains to the legal description of an event, issuing a decision by the general board is possible. However, if the disagreement concerns the personal interpretation of an event by the judge, the involvement of the general board of the supreme court faces a limitation. Based on this standard, the “welfare of the client” is an interpretive matter and falls within the subjective understanding of the judge. Consequently, any intervention in this matter is outside the jurisdiction of the General board of the Supreme Court.
Keywords
Decision No. 847-25/2/1403 of the General Board of the Supreme Court
Jurisdiction of the General Board of the Supreme Court
Prerequisite for Issuing a Decision
Legal Description of Civil Verdict
Distinction between Fact and Law

Subjects

Articles
[1]. Omidi, J. (1996). “Tafshir-e Qanon Dar Hoqoq-e Engelestan”. Private Law Journal. 38(0), 85-121. [In Persian]
[2]. Ansari, A. (2015). “Necessity Of International Cooperation in Proving the Foreign Law”. Private Law Journal. 12(1), 53-74. [In Persian]
[3]. Shams, A. (2014). “La Principe Dispositif Donne Aux Plaideur”. Legal Research Quarterly. 17(65), 1-24. [In Persian]
[4]. Sheikholesmali, M. (2003). “Theories On Establishment of The Content of The Foreign Law in Private International Law”. 9(37), 61-74. [In Persian]
[5]. Qamami, M. Eshraqi Arani, M. (2010). “Distinction Between Question of Fact and Elaborating a Theoric Basi”. Journal of Private Law Studies. 40(2), 279-294. [In Persian]
[6]. Qamami, M. (2022). “The Principles and Rules of Procedural Law Are Linked; The Procedural Shell- guard Of Procedural Principles”. Legal Studies. 14(4), 95-118. [In Persian]
[7]. Mohseni, H. Qamami, M. (2015). “Relation Between Independence of Adjudication and Advocacy”. Private Law Studies Quarterly. 45(2), 301-318. [In Persian]
[8]. Mosavi, AH. (2016). “Enterance of Supreme Court at Matter of Fact and Evidence at Civil Procedure and Offer a Theory”. Journal of Private Law. 13(2), 183-208. [In Persian]
[9]. Hormozi, Kh. (2010). “Tosif-e Qanoni-e Vaqeiat va Ahamiate an dar Dadrasi”. Research Journal of Law and Politics. 28(14), 379-402. [In Persian]
Books
[1]. Eslamipanah, A. (2022). Moqadame Elme Hoqoq. Tehran. Ganje Danesh Publications. 2nd Edition. [In Persian]
[2]. Almasi, N. (2022). The Conflict of Laws. Tehran. Academic Publish Center. 40th Edition. [In Persian]
[3]. Balo, F. (2020). “Hermenotic; Nazarieh, Karbast, Naqd; Az Hermenotic-e classic Ta Hermenotic-e Falsafi”. Tehran. Zavvar Publications. 1st Edition. [In Persian]
[4]. Jafaritabar, H. (2017). Divv dar Shishe. Tehran. Negah-e Moaser Publications. 1st Edition. [In Persian]
[5]. Khatami, M. (2020). Gadamer and the Problems of Heermeneutics. Tehran. Elm Publications. 1st Edition. [In Persian]
[6]. Rene, D. (1985). Major Legal Systems in the World Today. (Translated from English to Persian by H Safaei et al). Tehran. Academic Publish Center. 1st Edition. [In Persian]
[7]. Ripert, G. Les Forces Creatrices Du Droit. (Tranlated from French to Persian by R Shokouhizadeh). Tehran. Majd Publications. 2nd Edition. [In Persian]
[8]. Saljouqi, M. (2005). Droit International Prive. Tome I. Tehran. Mizan Publications. [In Persian]
[9]. Shams, A. (2022). Procedure Civile; Approfondie. Tehran. Derak Publications. 44th Edition. [In Persian]
[10]. Katouzian, N. (1994). Moqadame Elme Hoqoq. Tehran. Enteshar Company in Collaboraion with Bahman Borna. 17th Edition. [In Persian]
[11]. Katouzian, N. (2002). Hoqoq Madani; Qavaede Omoumi Qarardad-ha. Vol I. Tehran. Sahami-e Enteshar Company. 5th Edition. [In Persian]
[12]. Katouzian, N. (2016). Esbat va Dalile Esbat. Vol I. Tehran. Mizan Publicatons. 9th Edition. [In Persian]
[13]. Matindaftari, A. (2019). Aeene Dadrasi Madani va Bazargani. Tehran. Majd Publications. 6th Edition. [In Persian]
[14]. Mohseni, H. (2018). Edare Jaryan-e Dadrasi; Bar Paye Hamkari va dar Chaharchob-e Osoule Dadrasi. Tehran. Sahami-e Enteshar Company. 4th Edition. [In Persian]
[15]. Herzog, P. Karlen, D. (2022). Attacks on Judicial Decisions. Vol 8 of Civil Procedure. (Translated from English to Persian by H Mohseni & M Aqaei. Tehran. Sahami-e Enteshar Company. 1st Edition. [In Persian]
[16]. Yazdanian, A. (2024). Hoqoq Ta’ahodat; Qavaede Omoumi Masoliat Madani, Ba motale’e Tatbiqie Hoqoq-e Faranse. Vol I. Tehran. Mizan Publications. 3rd Edition. [In Persian]
Comparative Law Researches
Volume 29, Issue 3 - Serial Number 129
Fall
Autumn 2025
Pages 41-70