Comparative Law Researches

Comparative Law Researches

Alternative Litigation in Civil Proceedings of Iran, the United States and France

Document Type : Original Research

Author
badie fathi
Assistant Professor of Private and Economic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
10.48311/clr.2025.27950
Abstract
Alternative litigation represents the transfiguration of the movement of legal systems from pure formalism to judicial realism. This institution, which has become the core of comparative procedural law over the past century, is mainly based on several pillars: ensuring efficiency and access to justice, preventing unnecessary proliferation of lawsuits, and reducing the social and economic costs of handling lawsuits. This research introduces and analyzes alternative litigation in Iranian law with a critical and analytical approach, and in this regard, it also conducts a comparative study of the status of this concept in American and French law. In the Iranian legal system, despite the existence of scattered evidences, including limited references and examples in judicial procedure, the formal and structured effect of alternative litigation is not clearly evident. The structure of legal articles and the conservative interpretation of judicial procedure have created an obstacle to the full acceptance of this institution in practice. This has made it difficult for plaintiffs, in cases where the basis of their claim or demand is in doubt, to easily present an alternative claim with an appropriate efficiency factor in accordance with the requirements of the proceedings. In contrast, rapid and fundamental changes in American law, especially after the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of 1938, have contributed to the acceptance and deepening of alternative claims; in such a way that various causes and aspects of the claim can be raised in a single lawsuit, regardless of coherence and even despite the logical inconsistency of the claims. Also, the French legal system, by accepting this institution and creating a mandatory framework and mechanism through judicial procedure, has taken fundamental steps to recognize alternative claims and litigations.




 
Keywords
Alternative Litigation
Fundamental Litigation
Certainty of Claim
Forms of Actio

Subjects

 
۶. فهرست منابع
۱-۶) منابع فارسی
الف) کتاب‌ها
1.        شمس، عبدالله (1403). آیین دادرسی مدنی پیشرفته، تهران: دراک، جلد 2.
2.        متین‌دفتری، احمد (1397). آیین دادرسی مدنی و بازرگانی، تهران: مجتمع علمی فرهنگی مجد، جلد 1.
 
ب) دادنامه‌ها
3.        پرونده کلاسه ٩١٠٩٩٨٤١٥٦٢٠٠٥٨٧، دادنامه شماره ٩٢٠٩٩٧٤١٥٦٢٠٠٧٤٢ تاریخ 13/9/1392، قنبرزاده، معاون قضایی و دادرس شعبه دوم دادگاه عمومی حقوقی میانه.
4.        به موجب دادنامه شماره 9209974127701559-17 تاریخ 26/11/1392 مستشاران شعبه 17دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان، لسان‌اله محمدی ارهانی، تقی نامدار.
5.        شعبه 50 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران، 9509982885500547 تاریخ 28/02/1395 در استوار کردن دادنامه شماره شماره 00900 مورخ 1394/7/27 صادره از شعبه 5 دادگاه عمومی حقوقی اسلامشهر.
6.        شعبه 52 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران در دادنامه  9209970269500900 تاریخ 29/07/1392
7.        دادگاه حقوقی 2 مستقل الموت دادنامه شماره 169 تاریخ 27/10/12372 موضوع پرونده کلاسه 72/64
8.        شعبه 258 دادگاه حقوقی تهران (مجتمع قضایی شهید مفتح) دادنامه شماره 1404683390007021544 تاریخ 25 تیرماه 1404
 
۲-۶) منابع غیرفارسی
A) Books
9.        Chemerinsky, E. (2021). Federal Jurisdiction, 8th ed., Aspen Publishing.
10.        Chitty, J. (1837). A Treatise on Pleading and Parties to Actions, London: Sweet; Stevens & Sons, Vol. 1.
11.        Chitty, J. (1837). A Treatise on the Parties to Actions, and on Pleading, London: S. Sweet, Vol. 1.
12.        Glannon, J. W. (2018). Civil Procedure: Examples & Explanations, 8th ed., Aspen Publishing (Wolters Kluwer).
13.        St. Paul, MN: West and Chitty, J. (1837). A Treatise on the Parties to Actions, and on Pleading, London: S. Sweet, Vol. 1.
14.        Stephen, H. J. (1882). A Treatise on the Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions, 10th American ed., F. Heard, Ed.), Boston: Little Brown, and Company.
15.        Wright, C. A., & Miller, A. R. (2004). Federal Practice and Procedure, 3rd ed., Vol. 5.
16.        Wright, C. A., & Miller, A. R. (2022). Federal Practice and Procedure, 4th ed., St. Paul, MN: West. Vol. 5.
17.        Wright, C. A., & Miller, A. R. (2022). Federal Practice and Procedure, 4th ed., St. Paul, MN: West, Vol. 5.
18.        ابراهیم، محمد محمود (1984). نظریه العامه للطبات العارضه، قاهره: دارالفکر العربی.
 
B) Articles
19.        Cadiet, L. (2000). "Conclusions subsidiaires et effet dévolutif de l’appel", JCP G, I, 267.
20.        Clark, C. E. (1926). "The Complaint in Code Pleading", Yale LJ, 35, 259–291.
21.        Dodson, S. (2010). "New pleading, new discovery", Michigan Law Review, 53-89.
22.        Etienne Vergès, Professeur à l'Université de Grenoble II La chronique de procédure civile - La lettre juridique n°356 du 25 juin 2009: Procédure civile, https:// www. lexbase. fr/ revues- juridiques/ 3211822-cite.
23.        Georges, F. (2000). "Les développements récents concernant la saisie des meubles incorporels", in CUP (dir. Georges de Leval), Le point sur les procédures, p. 414.
24.        Georges de Leval. (2000), "Le point sur la procédure civile", in CUP (dir. Georges de Leval), Le point sur les procédures, Vol. 43.
25.        Hakim Boularbah. (2000). "L’introduction de l’instance et la notification" in CUP (dir. Georges de Leval), Le point sur les procédures, CUP, p. 54.
26.        Jacques Englebert. (2000). "Les nullités", in CUP (dir. Georges de Leval), Le point sur les procédures, CUP, Vol. 43.
27.        Putman (E.). (1991). "Remarques sur la demande subsidiaire", JCP G, I, 3493, https:// www. courdecassation. fr/ files/ files/Publications/Bulletin%20d%27information/2009/bulletin_15-09-2009.pdf.
28.        Spencer, A. B. (2010). "Plausibility Pleading", Boston College Law Review, 51(2), 551-614.
29.        Subrin, S. N. (1986). "How equity conquered common law: the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in historical perspective", U. pa. L. rev., 135, 909.
 
C) Dissertations
30.        Florence, B. R. U. S. (2014). "Le principe dispositif et le procès civil" (Doctoral dissertation, Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour).
 
D) Cases
31.        Cass. civ. 2, 11 février 1998, n° 96-19.106, Mme X c/ M. X (N° Lexbase : A2834ACX), Bull. civ. II, 1998, n° 48, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/ JURITEXT000007039319.
32.        Cour d'appel de Colmar, 10 septembre 2019, n° 18/02030, https:// www. labase-lextenso.fr/jurisprudence/CACOLMAR-10092019-18_02030, Cour d'appel de Lyon, CIV.3, du 16 novembre 2006, https:// www. legifrance. gouv. fr/ juri /id/ JURITEXT000007629274.
33.        Cour de Cassation, Chambre civile 2, du 21 décembre 2006, 05-20.613, Publié au bulletin, https:// www. legifrance. gouv. fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000007053953.
34.        Cour de Cassation, Chambre commerciale, du 26 novembre 2002, 97-11.608, Inédit, https:// www. legifrance. gouv. fr/ juri/id/JURITEXT000007442474.
35.        Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 3, 11 mai 2011, 10-14.651 10-15.000, Publié au bulletin, https:// www. legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT 000024171931.
36.        Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre sociale, 10 décembre 2015, 14-16.214 14-16.337, Publié au bulletin. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000031609005.
37.        Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 [1957].
38.        Holman v. Indiana, 211 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2000).
39.        Hale v. Village of Madison, No. 16-cv-68-jdp, 2016 WL 4224213 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 9), 2016. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000020681382.
40.        United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 394 (1948).
 
[In Persian]:
41.        Matin Daftari, Ahmad, (1397), Civil and Commercial Procedure, Tehran: Majd Scientific and Cultural Complex, Volume 1.
42.        Shams, Abdullah, (1403), Advanced Civil Procedure, Tehran: Drak, Volume 2.