The judge’s role in incompetent’s incapability

Authors

Abstract

Abstract
The incompetent, also called immature, is someone
whose occupying in his own possessions is not rational,
whether he has not accomplished maturity after adolescence
or has faced prodigality after maturity and adolescence. The
incompetent is among the interdicted people, but the question
is that just occuring the prodigality results in the
incompetent’s interdiction and the elimination of the
prodigality leads to the cancellation of the interdiction, or the
constancy and cessation of interdiction needs the judge’s
sentence. The jurists have many different ideas about this
matter. Some believe that interdiction gets confirmed as soon
as prodigality occurs and eliminates as it obviates they also
claim that there is no need to judge’s sentence. Others believe
that whether confirmation or elimination of interdiction is
based on the judge’s sentence. There are also some who
believe that the judge’s sentence is not necessary in the
confirmation of interdiction but essential to eliminate it.
Another group believes that just further confirmation of
interdiction and not its elimination needs the judge’s sentence.
Finally, there is a group of jurists who believe that the
interdiction due to failing to accomplish maturity and facing
prodigality after maturity are different. They believe that in
the first case, judge’s sentence is not needed whether to
confirm or eliminate interdiction, but it should be present for
both actions in the latter.

Keywords

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics