Objective: The main objective of this research is to identify and analyze the most important obstacles and problems in Article 34 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Law of 1356, which lead to the extension of the time for the execution of judgments and the delay of proceedings. This article seeks to provide practical solutions and reform proposals by carefully analyzing this article and related executive procedures to reduce the delay in the execution of judgments, prevent abuse of the convict, and realize the rights of the convict as soon as possible.
Research Method: This research was conducted using a descriptive analytical method and relying on library resources including laws, regulations, specialized books, scientific articles, and unanimous opinions and advisory opinions. The research method is based on the qualitative content analysis of Article 34 and other related articles of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Law, as well as examining practical examples and implementation problems in judicial authorities.Comparative studies with the French legal system have also been used to provide solutions.
Findings: Article 34 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Law is faced with ambiguities and legislative gaps that allow the defendant to delay the execution of the judgment by intentionally introducing properties that have no buyer, claiming unjustified insolvency, or introducing properties with registration and legal problems.
The lack of a unified and transparent system for identifying the defendant's properties is one of the main obstacles to the rapid execution of judgments.
The sequence in introducing properties by the defendant and the prolongation of the auction process are among the main factors delaying the proceedings.
Existing enforcement guarantees, such as imprisonment, are ineffective due to the strictness in proving the defendant's fraud.
The optional execution of the judgment in this article, instead of being mandatory, gives the defendant the opportunity to abuse.
Conclusion: The overall conclusion of the research indicates that it is necessary to amend Article 34 of the Civil Execution Law and add clarification notes. Also, establishing a national system for transparent property registration, intensifying criminal penalties for concealing property, temporarily enforcing judgments, and limiting the social rights of the convicted person against the violator can lead to reducing the delay in proceedings and accelerating the execution of judgments. Finally, it is suggested that, following the example of advanced legal systems such as France, new executive solutions be presented to the Islamic Consultative Assembly in the form of a reform bill