A Comprehensive Legal Analysis
In the realm of jurisprudence and judicial studies, the intersection between tort liability and the theory of abuse of rights holds significant importance. This discourse delves into the legal foundations and principles governing this intricate subject, examining legislative nuances, constitutional rights, and key precedents that shape the landscape of litigious pursuits.
Jurisprudentially, it is widely acknowledged that the theory of abuse of rights finds its legal footing within the domain of tort. This assertion is bolstered by national legislation, notably articulated in Article 101 of the Jordanian Constitution, reaffirming the constitutional right to seek recourse in the courts. A pivotal cassation decision (No. 914/2020) underscores the legitimacy of litigation as a fundamental right.
The responsibility associated with the exercise of the right to litigation unfolds in dual dimensions. Firstly, the right itself is deemed legitimate and permissible, shielding litigants from accountability for resultant harm. Secondly, there exists a caveat against unfettered procedural transgressions, emphasizing the need to align litigation with its intended purpose of serving legitimate interests. This perspective emanates from the same cassation decision (No. 914/2020).
The Jordanian legislator embraces a stringent criterion for accepting lawsuits, requests, or payments, linking them to the presence of personal, direct, existing, and legitimate interests as outlined in Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. This legislative stance, reinforced by the cassation decision (No. 914/2020), underscores the imperative to prevent the abuse of litigation rights.
While the Civil Code meticulously delineates controls for the use and abuse of rights (Articles 61-66), the Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Law No. 15 of 2000 supplements this framework. Article 3 of the mentioned law, as interpreted in a pertinent cassation decision (No. 1093/2021), accentuates the need for a specialized approach in unfair competition claims.
In the context of unfair competition lawsuits, two distinct scenarios warrant compensation claims. Firstly, compensation may be sought for damages arising from the use of the right to file a lawsuit. Secondly, compensation is pertinent to damages resulting from urgent requests to seize goods and halt production. The Court of Appeal, in adjudicating compensation, must navigate the intricacies of these scenarios, giving due consideration to the specific provisions of the Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Law.
Temporal aspects play a pivotal role in determining compensation. The period for which compensation must be estimated, accounting for deprivation or lost profit, involves a meticulous assessment. This evaluation, derived from cassation decision No. 1093/2021, mandates the inclusion of the minimum value of compensation in accordance with the Competition and Trade Secrets Law.
In concluding, the legal journey through tort liability and the abuse of rights doctrine demands a nuanced understanding of legislative frameworks, constitutional rights, and jurisprudential principles. The judicious application of these elements, as exemplified in key cassation decisions, serves as a compass for navigating the complexities of litigation, ensuring a fair and equitable legal landscape.
Authors: Legal Consultant Osama Al-Hassan & Attorney Omar Al-Qudsi
This analysis focuses on Decision No. 7081/2023, examining crucial legal concepts including abuse of the right to litigation, opponent’s bad faith, intent to harm, unfair competition lawsuit, precautionary seizure, direct, existing, and legitimate personal interest, lost profits, union of legal centers, and the ruling gaining a final degree.
Attornies: Omar Al-Qudsi & Osama Al-Hasan
In Arabic language