Abstract:
AbstractThe Preliminary injuction is an urgent proceeding and a precautionary measure and a function of the main lawsuit, which has been recognized in both administrative and civil fields as a guarantee to prevent the possible violation of the rights of the beneficiary or the petitioner. Therefore, in order to identify the shortcomings and highlight the existing gaps in the requirements related to the two mentioned fields, the foundations, pillars, rituals and process of issuing and finally implementing the "temporary order" were investigated and analyzed. This research, in a descriptive-analytical format, seeks to answer this basic question: What issues did the institution of temporary injunction in the Administrative Court of Justice and legal courts face? Is it guaranteed? During this research, it was found that the institution of "temporary order" in both administrative and legal proceedings is considered as an effective tool in order to prevent irreparable and unusual damages for the petitioner, and if its legal requirements are met, it is possible to issue It is generally possible at the discretion of the trial judge. In addition, due to the gaps related to this institution such as; The incontestability of issuing or canceling a temporary order, the weakness of the executive guarantee necessary for its implementation, etc., has strengthened the possibility of violating the claimant's or beneficiary's rights. Finally, some suggestions were identified and introduced in order to eliminate the identified shortcomings and damages.
Machine summary:
Nader Asadi Owjagh, Mohammad Hasanvand, Mohammad Mahdi Shirazi 33 Conclusion In this research, the deficiencies and gaps related to the application of the interim order institution in two domains, the Court of Administrative Justice and civil courts, have been identified, and it was concluded that the existing legal inadequacies in this institution have confronted the rights of the plaintiff or interested party with challenges.
Based on this subject, although no independent ruling has been explicitly provided in the Law on the Formation of the Court regarding the time for hearing a request for the issuance of "interim order," fortunately, the legislator in Article (314)2 of the Civil Procedure Code has explicitly stated the method of hearing urgent matters.
Therefore, as its description suggests, an 'interim order' is a temporary matter that is only subject to the issuance of judicial rulings in administrative or civil lawsuits for the purpose of compensating for potential irreparable damages arising from the actions of the authorities enumerated in Article (10) of the Law on the Formation of the [Court], upon the fulfillment of its unavoidable requirements, namely the propositions of 'necessity' and 'urgency.
Nader Asadi Oujagh, Mohammad Hassnavand, Mohammad Mahdi Shirazi 13 civil, by relying on the establishment of the component of 'urgency' and the plaintiff's request, has deemed the court authorized to issue an interim order, and in none of the legal articles related to this subject has attention been paid to the indicator of necessity.
(
, 
, 
)
