The Claim Prevention Suit(Comparative Study)

Abstract

The injunction is a preventive action that has arisen within the framework of judicial precedent as an exceptional mechanism aimed at achieving a balance between the creditor's right to a legal claim and the debtor's right to be free from vexatious or unfounded claims. This action is based on a preventive philosophy that precludes disputes before they arise, based on two fundamental principles: the potential interest that permits judicial intervention when there is a serious threat to the plaintiff's legal position, and the principle of good faith in exercising the right to litigate in a manner that prevents abuse and harm to others. This is consistent with the general rules of civil liability and the principle of "no harm, no harm."

The legal basis for this action has sparked widespread jurisprudential controversy, given the lack of an explicit text regulating it in most legislation, including Iraqi, Egyptian, and Jordanian law. This has prompted the judiciary to develop it as a practical solution to combat the abuse of the right to litigate. Therefore, this claim is admissible whenever there is a serious and immediate interest, with the burden of proof shifting to the creditor to prove the validity of the claim, as an exception to the general rule "the one who claims bears the burden of proof," based on the presumption of innocence. The importance of this claim lies in reducing the phenomenon of vexatious lawsuits, which burden the judiciary and expose individuals to unlawful financial and moral damages. It also contributes to achieving stability in transactions by protecting the debtor from the constant threat of unjustified claims. This reflects the role of the judiciary in expanding the scope of legal protection through supplementary jurisprudence, while simultaneously raising the issue of the limits of judicial authority in creating means of protection not provided for by legislation. Therefore, it can be said that the claim prevention claim represents a combination of procedural and substantive rules. On the one hand, it is a preventative formal claim aimed at preventing a dispute before it arises, while on the other hand, it requires a preliminary objective examination of the legitimacy of the claimed right. This raises questions about the possibility of codifying it in the future and the limits of judicial oversight over its use, so as not to restrict the inherent right to litigation.