پيدايش و چالش قاعده منع تحصيل دليل

THE EMERGENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE RULE OF CIVIL JUDGEʹʹS NEUTRALITY

شايد هيچ يك از اصول و قواعد حقوق دادرسي مدني به اندازه اصل بي طرفي دادرس، قاعده منع تحصيل دليل و قاعده منع تلقين دليل دچار كشاكش نبوده اند. اين پژوهش با رويكردي انتقادي بر آن است كه رهيافت موجود در ارتباط اين اصل و قواعد را به چالش كشيده و رهيافتي جديد ارايه دهد. بر اساس ديدگاه سنتي و موجود، تحصيل دليل چهره زشت و ناپسندي دارد، مبناي قاعده منع تحصيل دليل اصل بي طرفي دادرس است و رابطه بين قاعده منع تحصيل دليل و قاعده منع تلقين دليل چندان روشن نيست. اما ديدگاه جديد در اين مقاله قصد دارد چهره اي مثبت و پسنديده از تحصيل دليل ارايه كند. بر اساس اين ديدگاه، اصل بي طرفي مبناي قاعده منع تلقين دليل است و اصل حاكميت اصحاب دعواي مدني مبناي قاعده منع تحصيل دليل. به نظر نويسنده با ظهور قوانين جديد كه پيام آور انديشه فعال گرايي دادگاه بودند، قاعده منع تحصيل دليل از بين رفت و اصل تعاون بين دادرس و اصحاب دعوا جايگزين آن شد.

There is a long-standing rule in Iranian Civil Procedural system known as “The Rule of Maane Tahsile Dalil” {preventing judge from taking evidence} being equivalent to “The Rule of Judge Neutrality” in European Law. According to this rule, the civil judge administer the evidences passively, namely, he/she can not hear the evidences unless at the request of the parties. Traditionally, Iranian jurists have been regarding the principle of impartiality as the base of this rule without distinguishing it’s difference from rule of neutrality. For the first time in the Iranian legal literature, this formal essay aims to analysis the western rule of Maane Tahsile Dalil and the Islamic rule of Maane Talghin Dalil and deals with the differences and outcomes of the principle of impartiality and the principle of neutrality. Finally, this essay concludes that, on the contrary to the traditional view, what forms the base of the Rule is not the principle of impartiality but it is the principle of party-disposition. Indeed, the Principle of impartiality constitutes the base of the rule of Maane Talghin Dalil {suggestion of evidence}. In addition, the rule of judgeʹs neutrality has been replaced by the principle of cooperation.