Legal adaptation of the waiver of a civil judicial ruling

Section: RESEARCH
Issue
Vol. 27 No. 91 (2025): Volume 27 Issue 91
Published
Aug 4, 2025
Pages
30-64

Abstract

The civil judicial ruling serves as the mechanism established by the legislator in the Civil Procedures Law to safeguard substantive rights. In both legal language and jurisprudence, the concept of waiving a civil judicial ruling has been the subject of discussion to determine its legal nature. Although a waiver may appear to be a voluntary act, it does not always meet the strict technical definition of a waiver in legal terms. For example, a donation, though seemingly voluntary, may involve compensation and thus does not qualify as a waiver of the right. Forfeiture, by contrast, represents the outcome of relinquishing a right that has been affirmed by a judicial ruling. It is important to note that a waiver is broader and more comprehensive than mere omission. A waiver of a civil judicial ruling is considered a unilateral actan expression of unilateral will. While it may share some characteristics with other legal actions, it must be distinguished from waiving a procedural act or document within the case, from reconciliation, voluntary annulment, waiver of the lawsuit itself, or waiver of the right to appeal.

References

  1. Lessona. Sllvio, Essai Dune Theoria Generale de la Renonciation en droit civil, revue Trimesterielle de droir civil, tome 11, paris | 1912 .
  2. Patrick Devedjian: Le temps des juges, Flammarion|
  3. Perrot. Droit judiciaire Priv, paris| 1977, p.580; Jean Vincent, Serge Guinchard , Procdure Civile, Dalloz| 1981.
  4. Pierre. Raynaud, La renunciation a un droit , Reveue trimestrielle de droit civil, tome 35 | 1936.
  5. Raynand, Le dsistement d'instance| 1942.
  6. Raynand. La renonciation un droit.
  7. . : ( ).
  8. (| 1956).
  9. . 12 (3 | 1414) 141.
  10. . ( | 1983).
  11. . ( |1983).
  12. . ( | 1988).
  13. . ( ).
  14. . ( | 1966).
  15. . - ( | 2008).
  16. . ( | 2016). . 83 1969 ( | 2007).
  17. . - ( | 2011).
  18. . - ( | 2017).
  19. . ( : 666) : ( |1420 / 1999).
  20. . . - ( 4 2 14 | 2015).
  21. . ( )
  22. . ( | 1966).
  23. . ( | 1994).
  24. . ( | 2013).
  25. . ( 32 4| 1995).
  26. . . ( | 1958).
  27. . . - ( 4 11 | 2019).
  28. . ( | 1968).
  29. . ( | 1988)
  30. . ( |1990).
  31. . ( | 2009).
  32. . . ( | 1980).
  33. . - ( | 2010).
  34. . ( | 2016).
  35. . 83 1969 ( | 1972).
  36. . ( | 2014).
  37. . ( |1978).
  38. . ( |2009).
  39. . - ( 9 2| 2019 -2020).
  40. . ( |1989).
  41. . ( . | 2008)
  42. . ( ).
  43. . ( | 1998).
  44. . . . . ( ).
  45. . ( ).
  46. . ( |2017)
  47. . ( ).

Authors

Mohamed Hamid

Ministry of Interior

ORCID
Yasser AL-SABAWEE

College of law/University of Mosul

ORCID

Identifiers

https://doi.org/10.33899/arlj.2022.135576.1216
Download this PDF file
PDF

Statistics