The Securities market law of the Islamic Republic of Iran has determined an institution called “arbitration committee" for specialized, fast, and square handling of disputes of the personnel of stock exchange market; but any needful regulation has not yet been passed about its procedure. As a result, this study has discussed the jurisdiction of arbitration committee in speedy trail and ancillary action by descriptive- analytic method and examined its jurisdiction by scrutinizing books, codes and judicial scheme to find an effective solution for administration of justice for the personnel of capital market.
The study indicates that according to the necessity to address substantive arbitration committee and adherence to the rules of civil procedure, this judicial branch, to maintain the right of implementation of verdict and prevent the escalation of conflicts and violations of rights of the parties in the context of speedy trial, is authorized like the court.
In the case of ancillary actions, , based on Article 36 of the Securities Market Act, if a dispute arisen between the active parties in the stock market is due to their professional activity, this judicial branch also has jurisdiction within its own exclusive jurisdiction. Terms of addressing these claims in the arbitration committee are the same as the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, but in the case of the necessary regulations and procedures of the Civil Procedure Code, there is enough flexibility.

Abstract
First name: Ezak
Last name: Zehiry
Student number: 9216707
Thesis title: comparative study of maritime transport operator liability in Iran’s legal system and Rotterdam convention
Supervisor professor: Dr. Khalil Ahmadi
Advisor professor: Dr. Seyed Mohammad Hassan Malaeke Pour Shushtari
Degree: M.A
Discipline: law
Sub-discipline: private law
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences
Department of law
Graduation date:
Keywords: maritime transport, transport operator liability, maritime laws, Rotterdam convention
The growing importance of maritime transport has continuously attracted the attention of its participants and stakeholders to this distinct branch of transport industry. This is also true for maritime transport laws and this area has always been under various studies and investigations which is expected to satisfy the needs and resolve the problems in this particular area.
In this thesis the author suggests that given the inefficiency and backwardness of Hague regulations (which Iran’s maritime law is a translation of that) and also given the obsoletion of Hamburg rules, on the one hand, and with respect to the urgent need for new laws suitable with new conditions, on the other hand, world society was motivated to take steps in formulating updated, comprehensive, balanced, and efficient regulations which provide the benefits of both transport consignors and operators. To this end, in 1988 first attempts were made to ratify a new convention which eventually was ratified by UN General Assembly in December 11, 2008 hereinafter called Rotterdam rules. Now given these new regulations, the present paper tries to find an answer to this question: what innovations have been made about the responsibility of maritime transport operators in terms of nature, condition, exemptions, and effects?
Rotterdam rules, while avoiding extremisms of Hamburg rules, keep their strengths and attempt to resolve the defects of Hague regulations (that Iran’s maritime laws are according to that). Rotterdam rules have brought about good innovations including “door-to-door” delivery, “electronic shipping documentations”, and “volume contract” which all reflect the consideration of contingencies and necessities of maritime transport industry in these rules. Rotterdam convention assumes the basis of transport operator liability to be the “Assumption of responsibility” which is more clear and explicit with respect to Iran’s maritime laws. Rotterdam rules, while considering cases of exemption from liability, obligate the operator to specify and prove the cause of accident to be exempted from liability. Also this convention does not ignore operator’s responsibility in special cases and delimitates his/her liability. In this respect, Rotterdam rules have also reduced problems regarding limitation of liability compared to maritime laws by changing unit of accounts from gold lira to “special drawing rights” and changing specification to “loading unit” as a measure of calculation and adding gross weight of product also as a criterion of calculation. Operator has been also considered liable for his/her act or omission which lead to violation of his/her obligation and even his/her liability is established in a partnership manner by maritime transport executive. Operator’s liabilities are clearly specified in the predicted limits and adding any limiting or exempting conditions to these liabilities is declared void. However, these is a possibility of issuing conditions to the benefit of product consignor. The ceiling of liability limitation is increased in this convention and the consignor is more protected compared to the maritime rules. Regarding operator’s liabilities, while maritime capabilities has been considered as a continuous commitment for him/her, they are stated in a detailed way.

 

 
The realization of a fair hearing with speed, accuracy and simplicity descriptions is the main goal legislative systems all around the world. Hesitation and suspension, revising and delay in the proceedings although slowdowns the proceedings after all this process in terms of legality is a facing delay as spending the required time is necessary to discover the truth and enforcing the principles of trial is like the principle of correspondence. Prolongation of procedure in civil proceedings is a roaming and timeless phenomenon which is not specific to a particular system. Several factors contribute to this phenomenon as the source of law and persons alleged to have maximum impact on the occurrence of this phenomenon. Ambiguity and lack of law or conflict of law rules, including the rules of form and substantive law lack of good implementation by the parties plays an important role in any delay in the proceedings, although the impact of the rules of substantive law is more like the case of prolongation of the proceedings. Increase of the disputes, violating the rule of law, conflicts of the law, increase in the density of the claims in courts, the lack of making allowance for non-governmental and judicial authorities, the impact of laws like, infinity of time for proceeding the reasons the uniformity of the justice systems to trial, the lack of a comprehensive law against the prolongation of the proceedings all lead to the rise in the prolongation of the proceedings. To deal with this phenomenon the pathology and removing the unnecessary rules with a view to reducing the prolongation of the proceedings, developing a setting of official document over the time reforming legal fees, attorney and expert in the creation of a research phase investigating judge of the Civil Court and forecasts, the courts of law to one and two, the development of e-justice are among the appropriate solutions.

 Attorney fee in Justice is a kind of argument that are discussed among legal or individual personalities with attorneys in attorney contracts. Regarding that legislator has accepted the freedom of contract in determination of attorney fee, however some restrictions have been imposed upon it that in the case of non-compliance of these restrictions may have serious consequences for the lawyer is sought. Via regulations and rules some of the imposed prohibitions upon attorney contracts are: Ban on usufruct of alleged, interdict obtaining any document as a guarantee of payment of honorarium (attorney fee). Ban on obtaining any liability payment in the cases that lawyers are required to pay. On the other hand, taxes on honorarium has allocated the laws that familiarity about them is mandatory. In the case of non-compliance of them, not only causing to negate the acquired guarantee and invalidity of contract, but also is kind of Offense and is punishable by a lawyer involved in. If in the attorney contract to resolve possible disputes, arbitration clause is approved, such a condition is true and the award will be binding for them. Another of the tasks that a lawyer is bound will be the honorarium tax which is calculated via direct taxes laws can be obtained from lawyers. If tax isn’t paid due to concealment of true honorarium, is tax evasion, and criminal is punished, and despite announcement of real honorarium, and tax stamp does not invalidate via lows, the lawyer representing the court will not be accepted. In the absence of agreement on the amount of honorarium, honorarium tariff regulation legislated in 1385 is considered for calculating the honorarium and its tax. Aforementioned regulation has problems because of multiple reasons, such as Small amounts of some of the honorarium tariff especially in the non-financial and criminal proceedings, significant errors in the recording of Regulations, and lack of attention to the needs of lawyers and attorney society. it is necessary and inevitable to be updated. The multiplicity of laws and regulations have helped to the unfamiliarity of lawyers and courts of justice of the honorarium, calculate it, tax it, warranties of non-payment of taxes. Thus, investigation and analysis is required of aforementioned issues, clarification of existing laws and regulations, and increasing the awareness of lawyers, judges, administrators, office managers and financial affairs of the honorarium.