الطعن في صحة السندات التقليدية والالكترونية
Date
2023-01-29
Authors
سجى رباح مصطفى ابو اشتية
Saja Rabah Mustafah Abu Ishtaieh
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
جامعة القدس
Abstract
هدفت الدراسة إلى إبراز موضوع الطعن في صحة السندات التقليدية والالكترونية، من خلال التعرف إلى ماهية السندات بشكل عام، ومن ثم استعراض الطعن في صحة كل من السندات التقليدية والسندات الالكترونية.
وقد اعتمدت الدراسة على المنهج الوصفي التحليلي "الاستنباطي" والذي يبدأ من العموميات إلى الجزئيات أو من العام إلى الخاص، إضافة إلى المنهج الاستقرائي الذي يبدأ من الخاص إلى العام أو من الجزئيات إلى الكليات ويعتمد على تأصيل القواعد القانونية والمسائل محل الدراسة، عن طريق الاعتماد على النصوص القانونية والمصادر ذات العلاقة وتحليلها. كما استخدمت الدراسة المنهج المقارن سواء في المقارنة بين السندات التقليدية والسندات الالكترونية من ناحية، وبين القانون الفلسطيني والقوانين الأخرى خاصة المصري والأردني من ناحية أخرى.
وتوصلت الدراسة لعدد من النتائج منها؛ أن القاضي إذا وجد أن جزء من المستند مزوراً وليس كله فإنه لا يبطل المحرر بأكمله، بل تبطل العبارة التي تمت إضافتها على المستند. كذلك أن إجراءات الطعن يمكن أن تقام أمام محكمة الاستئناف أو غيرها، حيث نصت العديد من القوانين على أن هذه الإجراءات يتم تقديمها لمحكمة الموضوع في أي حالة تكون عليها الدعوى. أيضاً أن هناك العديد من الفروقات بين الطعن بالجهالة والانكار دون الطعن بالتزوير، والتي أحسن بدوره المشرع الفلسطيني في استعراضها في قانون البينات الفلسطيني.
كما توصلت الدراسة للعديد من التوصيات منها: ضرورة قيام كل من المشرعين الفلسطيني والأردني بأن يحذوا حذو المشرع المصري الذي أورد مصطلحاً أكثر قوة من السند وهو المحرر، وبالتالي يجب عليهما استخدام هذا المصطلح عند تعديل القانون. كذلك ضرورة وجود نص صريح على غرار القانون المصري والفلسطيني الذي يتضمن شهادة الشهود في إثبات حصول الكتابة أو الإمضاء، ويكون النص كالتالي: "تسمع شهادة الشهود فيما يتعلق بإثبات حصول الكتابة أو الإمضاء أو الختم أو البصمة على السند المقتضى تحقيقه ممن نسبت إليه". أيضاً ضرورة تنظيم قانوني خاص يبرز ألية واجراءات الطعن بصحة السندات الإلكترونية، وعدم اقتصارها فقط على قانون البينات.
The study aimed to highlight the issue of challenging the validity of traditional and electronic bonds by identifying the nature of bonds in general, and then reviewing the challenge to the validity of both traditional and electronic bonds. The study used the "deductive" analytical descriptive method, which starts from the whole to the part or from the general to the specific. Moreover, the study relied on the inductive method, which starts from the specific to the general or from the part to the whole. This method depends on rooting the legal rules and issues under study by relying on legal texts and relevant sources and analyzing them. Besides, the study used the comparative approach, both in the comparison between traditional bonds and electronic bonds on the one hand, and between the Palestinian law and other laws, especially the Egyptian and Jordanian ones, on the other hand. The study concluded that if the judge finds that part, but not all, of the document is forged, he does not invalidate the entire document, but rather the phrase that was added to the document is invalidated. Likewise, appeal procedures can be instituted before the Court of Appeal or elsewhere since many laws stipulate that these procedures are submitted to the trial court. Also, there are many differences between the challenge of ignorance and denial without challenging the authenticity, which, in turn, was well presented by the Palestinian legislator in the Palestinian Evidence Law. Furthermore, the study recommended the need for both Palestinian and Jordanian legislators to follow the example of the Egyptian legislator, who introduced a more effective term than bond "Sanad", which is the supporting document "Moharar", and therefore they must use this term when amending the law. It is also necessary to have an explicit text similar to the Egyptian and Palestinian law, which includes the testimony of witnesses in proving the occurrence of writing or signature, and the text is as follows: “The testimony of witnesses regarding proving the writing, signature, seal or fingerprint on the document required to be verified is heard by whomever it is attributed to.” Also, it is necessary to organize a special legal framework that highlights the mechanism and procedures for challenging the validity of electronic documents, and not limiting them only to the Evidence Law.
The study aimed to highlight the issue of challenging the validity of traditional and electronic bonds by identifying the nature of bonds in general, and then reviewing the challenge to the validity of both traditional and electronic bonds. The study used the "deductive" analytical descriptive method, which starts from the whole to the part or from the general to the specific. Moreover, the study relied on the inductive method, which starts from the specific to the general or from the part to the whole. This method depends on rooting the legal rules and issues under study by relying on legal texts and relevant sources and analyzing them. Besides, the study used the comparative approach, both in the comparison between traditional bonds and electronic bonds on the one hand, and between the Palestinian law and other laws, especially the Egyptian and Jordanian ones, on the other hand. The study concluded that if the judge finds that part, but not all, of the document is forged, he does not invalidate the entire document, but rather the phrase that was added to the document is invalidated. Likewise, appeal procedures can be instituted before the Court of Appeal or elsewhere since many laws stipulate that these procedures are submitted to the trial court. Also, there are many differences between the challenge of ignorance and denial without challenging the authenticity, which, in turn, was well presented by the Palestinian legislator in the Palestinian Evidence Law. Furthermore, the study recommended the need for both Palestinian and Jordanian legislators to follow the example of the Egyptian legislator, who introduced a more effective term than bond "Sanad", which is the supporting document "Moharar", and therefore they must use this term when amending the law. It is also necessary to have an explicit text similar to the Egyptian and Palestinian law, which includes the testimony of witnesses in proving the occurrence of writing or signature, and the text is as follows: “The testimony of witnesses regarding proving the writing, signature, seal or fingerprint on the document required to be verified is heard by whomever it is attributed to.” Also, it is necessary to organize a special legal framework that highlights the mechanism and procedures for challenging the validity of electronic documents, and not limiting them only to the Evidence Law.