چالش‌های اجرای دادرسی الکترونیکی در حقوق ایران از منظر ‏دادرسی عادلانه و حقوق اصحاب دعوا

هر اندازه قوانین در اجرا، نظام‌مندتر و با سرعت متعارف و منطقی توام باشد، احساس امنیت قضایی و اعتماد جامعه به دستگاه قضا بیشتر خواهد شد. بر این اساس، لازم است تا دستگاه قضایی از فناوری الکترونیکی و وسایل ارتباطی نوین در امر قضا و اطلاع‌رسانی، مدد جوید و به‌کارگیری این ابزار تا حدی باشد که جایگزین قضاوت که امر انسانی است، نشود یا اعمال آن از اصل مقررات آیین دادرسی پیشی نگیرد. به‌طور کلی حقوق نباید دنباله‌رو فناوری باشد، بلکه فناوری باید در خدمت حقوق باشد و اجرای دادرسی الکترونیکی با همۀ مزایای آن، بدون سازگاری با برخی اصول قانون آیین دادرسی مدنی صورت گرفته است. بر این اساس دستگاه قضایی و اصحاب دعوا با چالش‌های مربوط به طرح دعوا (شامل دادخواست، منضمات، هزینۀ دادرسی و ارسال دادخواست به مرجع قضایی)، ابلاغ (شامل نحوۀ ابلاغ الکترونیکی و انواع آن) و رسیدگی الکترونیکی دعوا (شامل رعایت نکردن اصول دادرسی در تحقیق از اصحاب دعوا، رعایت نکردن مقررات شهادت شهود و ارائۀ اصول اسناد) مواجه است. علاوه‌بر موارد مذکور، رویکرد اجباری بودن مقررات دادرسی الکترونیکی در نظام حقوقی ایران، خالی از اشکال نیست و با اصل عدم تبعیض و برابری اصحاب دعوا و عدالت آیینی و نیز اصل علنی بودن دادرسی سازگاری ندارد. ازاین‌رو اختیاری کردن دادرسی الکترونیکی از سوی اصحاب دعوا یا تفکیک دعاوی به‌منظور پیش‌بینی الکترونیکی بودن دادرسی در برخی دعاوی مانند دعاوی تجاری یا رسیدگی به شکل سنتی در خصوص دعاوی مانند دعاوی خانوادگی، مفید فایده به‌نظر می‌رسد.

Challenges of Implementing e-litigation in ‎Iranian Law with Fair Trial and ‎Litigation Rights

AbstractRules of procedure, contrary to the substantive laws, are subject to change based on the requirements of time and place and the conditions of, and facilities available to, the society, and with the growth of technology. Therefore, despite that the Civil Procedure Code currently in effect has been enacted as early as in 2000, the legislature and consequently the judiciary, due to the inefficiency of that law, has sought to change it to reduce the excessive costs of litigation for individuals and the judiciary and minimize the procrastination. These efforts are crystallized in the Judicial Case Management system, resulting in the removal of redundant formalities from the proceedings and demonstrating itself in two main patterns, legal deregulation and material deregulation. Relying on modern technologies, the latter pattern consists in moving litigations away from the traditional manpowerbased form it used to have.Although a comprehensive law on elitigation has not yet been enacted, many of the rules of litigation are now processed electronically. This article argues, in response to this situation, that what is becoming electronic is litigations, the very right of individuals to access justice which is enshrined in the Iranian Constitution. Therefore, the major basis of the system should be the law, rather than the information technology and the abilities of engineers. The judiciary, in its very rapid advancing in the electronization of proceedings, has simply set aside some of the encumbering rules without replacing them by new lawmaking to address the problems in a more informed way. In some cases, instead of providing electronic services, this system decides in place of court judges, clerk or others involved in the lawsuits, neglects the application of the principles of proceedings that are meant to guarantee the acquired rights of individuals, and deviates from the purpose of assisting the proceedings. The litigants have no say whether the litigation is to be performed electronically. The optional elitigation procedure is applied in the courts of France, and the choice of elitigation or electronic information exchange in that country must be based on the litigants’ consent, which they even have the right to retract. The Judicial Case Management system should thus be designed in such a way that neither ignores the regulations nor allows electronic services beyond the law to be introduced in the litigation. In other words, since the litigation is the core of this system, it is not justified to subject the procedures to inefficient changes without necessity. Accordingly, the most important challenges in elitigation will be criticized in this article and the effects of elitigation in providing a fair trial and securing the rights of litigants will be explored by examining relevant rules and procedures.The present article has been written in a descriptiveanalytical method using library studies and a deductive method, to address the challenges and concerns in this field.The actual notification is one in which the form of notification is delivered to the addressee’s own, if the addressee is a natural person, or to a person authorized to obtain judicial documents, if the addressee is a legal entity, in accordance with procedural rules, by the officer legally responsible for the execution of the notification, in exchange for a receipt, and the process is reported to the court office. In electronic proceedings, according to Article 13 of the Regulations on the Use of Computer and Telecommunication Systems and Article 8 of the Regulations on the Provision of Electronic Judicial Services, electronic receipt of judicial papers to the addressee’s account in the notification system is deemed as valid actual notification. The fact that the notification is seen by the addressee, along with its time and other details, is recorded and stored in the notification system, and will be given all the effects of the actual notification. Logging in to the notification system through the user account and viewing the papers in this way is considered a receipt.The present study seeks to answer the question whether, assuming the enactment of comprehensive rules of electronic procedure, all the stages of the proceedings could be implemented electronically, and how this method of litigation could ensure the rights of litigants, in spite of all challenges it is faced with. The article argues, in response to this question, that what is becoming electronic is litigations, the very right of individuals to access justice which is enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, the major basis of the system should be the law, rather than the information technology and the abilities of engineers.Elitigation has undeniable benefits, such as the elimination of collusion between litigants and the notification officers, the capability of preparing and sending several records without going to court and, more importantly, the time efficiency. It has also several drawbacks for litigants as this practice is neither based on sufficient legal materials nor supported by enough technical infrastructure. It thus seems that it was the reduction of government costs rather than securing the interests of litigants that has motivated the project. As far as litigants are concerned, they will be forced to have a mobile phone line and a phone with special capabilities, to be connected to the internet, and to constantly monitor the Judicial Electronic Registration system, which demands time and expense. On the other hand, individuals will be obliged to accept various undesirable effects and consequences of elitigation, such as going to the offices of the Judiciary to file lawsuits, to be confined in describing their claims to the precomposed clauses of electronic forms without much power to alter them, and at the same time to pay many different and additional costs that were not necessary in nonelectronic proceedings. Also, one cannot request an immediate hearing during holidays or in nonoffice hours, and may be notified by the system at times of the day that are outside office hours, so he will miss, in practice, the day of notification. Finally, considering that many citizens do not have the necessary facilities for elitigation and many other drawbacks of this electronic system, it not only does not guarantee the rights of individuals to a fair trial, but can also be considered a violation of their rights.