24138

LAW3 41

دكتري

حقوق خصوصي

علوم اداري و اقتصاد

دي ماه1402

128ص.

محمدمهدي الشريف , دكتر عليرضا آرش پور

عليرضا فصيحي زاده

غصب , در حكم غصب , ضمان غصب , بدل حيلوله

درماده‌ي 311 قانون مدني به تبعيت از فقهاي اماميه، غاصب به نحو مطلق، مكلف به رد عين مغصوب به مالك گرديده كه البته اين اطلاق توسط ماده ‌واحده مصوب 1358 دريك مورد خاص كه غاصب جاهل بوده وضرر مالك بالنسبه به زيان غاصب اندك است، تخصيص خورده وحكم به پرداخت غرامت شده است. فقيهان مواردي را كه ردعين مستلزم ضررجاني يا مالي براي غير غاصب گردد نيز ازاين حكم استثناءكرده‌اندكه درنظام حقوقي ايران،اين‌هارانيز بايدمستثني دانست. مشهور فقها موردي راكه ردعين مستلزم ضررمالي غاصب مي‌گردد، هرچند ضرر هنگفت باشد و غاصب جاهل به غصب بوده باشد، استثناء ندانسته و قاعده لاضرر رادرموردغاصب،جاري نمي‌دانند. امابرخلاف مشهورفقها، برخي از فقيهان معاصر،تمايل به توسعه استثناء،به جايي‌كه متصرف جاهل بوده و ردعين مستلزم زيان هنگفت است،دارند. البته هرچنداستثناءقانوني،ناظربه فرض ويژه‌اي است،اماچون‌كه دليلي جز پذيرش اجراي «لاضرر»درموردغاصب جاهل ندارد،به‌نظرمي‌رسدكه قانون‌گذارهم‌سو با برخي فقها، «لاضرر»رادرفرض خاص ماده ‌واحده ، مجري دانسته كه مقتضاي پذيرش آن، محدود شدن وجوب رد عين، به موردي است كه مستلزم ضررهنگفت متصرف جاهل نباشد. بنابراين تسري حكم مقرر ه به مواردمشابه،توسعه‌ي بي‌مبناي استثنانبوده ومصداقي ازتعميم حكم به‌دليل عموميت علّت و مبناي حكم است.

surper , constructive usurpation , liability usurperition , Substitute of equal value given by usurper

Analysis of the Exceptions to the Restoration of Expropriated Property and the Possibility of Making Rules Based on the Exceptions in Islamic Jurisprudence and IranianLaw.

حقوق

In Article 311 of the Civil Code, according to the Imami jurisprudence, the usurper is absolutely obliged to reject the object of the usurper to the owner. Of course, this meaning is excluded by the single-clause bill approved in 1358 in a specific case where the usurper was ignorant and the ownerʹs loss is small compared to the usurperʹs loss, and compensation has been ordered. The jurisprudents have also excluded from this ruling the cases where rejection of the object requires loss of life or money to the non-usurper, which should also be considered as an exception in Iranʹs legal system. Most of the jurists do not consider the case where the rejection of the object requires the usurperʹs financial loss, even if the loss is huge and the usurper was ignorant of the usurpation, and they do not consider the rule of harm to be valid in the case of the usurper. But unlike the most jurists, some contemporary jurists tend to expand the exception to the place where the possessor is ignorant and the denial of the object requires a huge loss. Of course, although the legal exception refers to a special assumption, but since there is no reason other than to accept the implementation of "rule of prohibition of detriment" in the case of an ignorant usurper, it seems that the legislator, in line with some jurists, has considered "rule of prohibition of detriment" in the special assumption of a single-clause bill, which requires acceptance. It is the limitation of the obligation to reject the object to a case that does not require a huge loss for the ignorant possessor. Therefore, the extension of the prescribed sentence to similar cases is not a baseless expansion of the exception and is an example of the generalization of the sentence due to the generality of the cause and basis of the sentence.

4.