Abstract:
In the European Union, despite the existence of the Rome II Regulation governing non-contractual obligations, there is silence regarding the determination of the competent court in these types of cases. However, the Brussels I Regulation, in addition to the jurisdiction of the court of the defendant's domicile, recognizes the court of the place of the incident, the court of the insurer's domicile, and the court of the consumer's domicile as competent to adjudicate. In Iranian law, the question arises that in non-contractual obligations where the defendant does not have a domicile, residence, or immovable property in Iran, will only the court of the plaintiff's domicile have jurisdiction to hear the case, or will the court of the place of damage or the court of the place of the incident also be considered other competent courts for adjudication? In this article, we will examine the criteria for determining court jurisdiction in Iranian and European Union law regarding non-contractual obligations in order to present the inefficiency of Article 11 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 971 of the Civil Code in addressing the cases mentioned above.
Machine summary:
In Iranian law, the question arises that in non-contractual obligations, in cases where the defendant does not have a domicile, residence, or immovable property in Iran, is only the plaintiff's domicile court competent to hear the claim, or are the court of the place where the damage occurred or the court of the place of the incident also considered other courts with jurisdiction for adjudication?
In the legal system of the European Union, according to Brussels Regulation I, in addition to the court of the defendant's domicile, in order to provide greater protection for the injured party, the court of the place where the harmful act occurred, and in civil liability and employment relationships, the court of the employee's domicile, and also in environmental damage, the court of the place where the incident occurred, has jurisdiction to adjudicate (Beaumont and Raulus, 2002, p.
In the current situation, the jurisdictional criteria do not meet the needs of society, and one cannot rely on the ruling of Article 971 of the Civil Code or the provisions of Article 11 of the Civil Procedure Law. Based on allowing the plaintiff to file a lawsuit at his place of residence and file a lawsuit against a defendant who does not have a domicile, residence, or immovable property in Iranian courts, nor is he present; unless, like other countries or what is stated in the regulations governing the legal system of the European Union, a criterion such as the jurisdiction of the court of the place of the accident, the place of damage, the residence of the injured party, the place of creation of the causes of dispute, or the residence of the consumer is added to the current jurisdictional criteria of Iranian courts.
(
, 
, 
)
