اهليت استيفاي محجوران در قانون مدني

The Capacity to Exercise Rights of the Judicial Interdicted Persons in the Civil Code

ماده 212 قانون مدني، معامله اشخاص غير بالغ، غير عاقل و غير رشيد را به واسطه عدم اهليت استيفا، باطل مي‌داند و بر اساس ماده بعد، معامله محجوران نيز «غير نافذ» است. از سوي ديگر در ماده 1212 قانون مدني، تصرفات صغير باطل و به طور استثنا تملّكاتِ بلاعوض صغير‌ِ مميز صحيح تلقي شده است. همچنين، ماده 1213 آن، تصرفات حقوقي مجنون دايمي را مطلقاً باطل و اَعمال حقوقي‌ِ مجنون ادواري را در حال افاقه صحيح دانسته است. در ماده 1214، تصرفات غير رشيد، غير نافذ، ولي تملّكاتِ بلاعوض وي صحيح اعلام شده است، در حالي كه از يك سو، ماده 212 معامله چنين اشخاصي را به نحو مطلقْ باطل اعلام كرده بود و از سوي ديگر، ماده 213 آن را غير نافذ مي‌دانست. مقاله پيش رو، با رويكرد توصيفي ـ تحليلي، با تحليل مباني فقهي و حقوقي و ارايه نظريه‌هاي فقيهان امامي و حقوق‌دانان درباره حجر، سعي در رفع تعارض ظاهري‌ِ موجود دارد.

Article 212 of the civil code considers that the transaction of minors, insane and immature persons is void because of incapacity to exercise rights and the next article states that the transaction of the interdicted person is ineffective while article 1212 of the civil code considers that the minor ownership is void article1212 and in exception, the minor gratuitous owning is valid. Article 1213 of the civil code considers that the lawful ownerships of the constant insane are absolutely void and lawful activities of temporary insane in healthy circumstance are valid. Article1214 of the civil code states that the ownership of immature is no effective but his gratuitous owning is valid. From one side, the transaction of such persons is void distinctly as mentioned in article 212 of the civil code and from other side; article 213 of the civil code considers it no effective. The present paper with analytic –descriptive approach tries to solve the available apparent contradiction with the analysis of legal-jurisprudential bases and Imami jurists and law scholars of Iran in the ground of the interdiction in this way that the legislator in article 212 of the civil code (volume1) has announced that the decrees of the mentioned interdicted persons are void and in the second volume, from article1207 to up has stated that the decrees of the mentioned ones in article 212 of the civil code and article 213 of the civil code have related to the persons who are prohibited to possess all or some of their properties with a court or law jurisdiction. Key words: Judicial interdiction, Capacity to exercise rights, The interdicted person, Legal activities, Financial ownerships