چکیده:
In judicial cases, it is frequently observed that an individual purchases a car via leasing or with a mortgage clause from a seller or another person, and subsequently uses the vehicle to transport drugs or contraband. After the discovery of the prohibited shipment and the seizure of the vehicle, the question arises: in the conflict and collision between the rights of the car selling company or the mortgagee seeking to satisfy their claim from the vehicle, and the state's right to seize and confiscate the vehicle due to specific legal provisions, which right takes precedence over the other? This article suggests several common solutions in this regard and ultimately leaves the selection of the best solution to the esteemed readers and experts. The importance of this issue, given the increase in such buying and selling, is worthy of significant attention for the courts of justice.
خلاصه ماشینی:
After the discovery of the prohibited shipment and the seizure of the vehicle, the question arises: in the conflict and collision between the rights of the car selling company or the mortgagee, who is seeking to satisfy their claim from the vehicle, and the right of the state to seize and confiscate the vehicle due to a specific legal provision, which right takes precedence over the other?
), the situation is the same, and apparently, an instance of conflict occurs because, on one hand, the assumed bus is the mortgaged property and the mortgagee has the right to satisfy his debt by selling it, and on the other hand, by order of the law and due to the occurrence of a specific crime, the state has been granted the right of ownership.
This belief that the right of the state takes precedence over the rights of individuals is a famous belief, but no solid evidence can be found for it, and the reason for this Of course, in the context of resolving contradiction, it has been stated that the intended meaning of incapacitated persons in Article 213 of the Civil Code is the discerning minor whose guardian does not validate his transaction (See: Civil Law, Vol. 2, Dr. Emami) the famous priority is unknown.
In response to this answer, an objection might be raised that Article 780 of the Civil Code prioritizes the mortgagee over creditors, whereas in the subject under discussion, the state cannot be called a creditor in the literal sense, because this application contradicts the apparent meaning of the word 'creditor,' and the state does not possess the characteristics of a creditor in the literal and legal sense in this matter.
(
, 
, 
)
