نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
The doctrine of abuse of rights in ownership-related disputes remains one of the most contentious issues in private law, necessitating in-depth analysis and clarification. Given the lack of explicit statutory provisions in Iranian law, judicial interpretation plays a critical role in shaping the applicable standards. This article aims to answer the fundamental question: what are the legal and judicial criteria for identifying abuse of rights in property disputes under Iranian and Egyptian legal systems? Using a descriptive-analytical method and relying on library-based research, the study explores both legal frameworks comparatively. Findings reveal that in both Iran and Egypt, the doctrine of abuse of rights is recognized as a limitation on absolute ownership. No individual is permitted to exercise their ownership rights in a manner that causes unjust harm to others. In Iranian law, based on Article 132 of the Civil Code and Article 40 of the Constitution, customary standards (ʿurf) and intent to harm (qasd-e eḍrār) are the primary criteria for identifying abuse. If an individual exercises ownership in a manner that, either intentionally or by customary standards, results in harm to others, such conduct may be challenged under the abuse of rights theory. Iranian jurisprudence largely aligns with this interpretation, as judicial decisions frequently emphasize the necessity of proving harmful intent or actual damage. In contrast, Egyptian law incorporates illegitimacy of purpose and disproportionate use of rights alongside intent to harm as evaluative criteria, thereby presenting both parallels and divergences with Iranian law. This comparative analysis highlights the need for further theoretical and legislative development of the abuse of rights doctrine in both systems.
کلیدواژهها English
