Ownership of Non-Fungible Tokens as the Subject of Smart Contracts in Iranian and European Union Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. in Private Law, University of Mazandaran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Law, University of Mazandaran

10.22034/law.2026.69746.3551

Abstract

With the advancement of science—particularly computer technologies and electronic communications—the virtual space has expanded, and the concept of wealth creation in this realm has flourished. Today, many individuals regard interaction and ownership of assets in the virtual world or metaverse as equivalent to owning physical property. One of the most notable outcomes of these developments is the emergence of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) as unique digital assets, which have introduced new challenges concerning the concept of digital ownership. The existing legal frameworks, especially within the legal systems of Iran and the European Union, have not yet fully addressed these developments. This research seeks to answer two main questions: how the technical and legal structure of non-fungible tokens can be properly defined and classified within the legal systems of Iran and the European Union, and what legal mechanisms and frameworks can ensure legal security and the sustainable development of these assets. The hypothesis of the research is that current legal frameworks, due to their reliance on traditional concepts of tangible ownership, are unable to sufficiently recognize and protect digital asset ownership and thus require revision. In Iran, civil and property laws lack a clear definition of digital assets, while in the European Union, the absence of coordination among member states and the lack of a unified practical framework have prevented comprehensive legal protection for users and market participants. Adopting a comparative and analytical approach, this research examines the technical structure of NFTs and analyzes related regulations in Iran and the European Union to propose effective, transparent, and harmonized legal frameworks. The expected outcome is to establish a legal foundation for the sustainable development of NFT-related technologies, strengthen public trust, and enhance stability in the digital asset marke.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. کتاب‌ها

    1. امامی، سید حسن (1373). حقوق مدنی .تهران: اسلامیه.
    2. جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر (1381) .ترمینولوژی حقوق .تهران: کتابخانۀ گنج دانش.
    3. شهیدی، مهدی (1386). تشکیل قراردادها و تعهدات. تهران: مجد.
    4. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1372). دورۀ مقدماتی حقوق مدنی: اموال و مالکیت. تهران: دادگستر.
    5. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1378). اموال و مالکیت. تهران: دادگستر.

    مقالات

    1. رمضان‌زاده بادلی، ام‌البنین؛ تقی‌پور درزی نقیبی، محمدحسین و سلیمانی اندرور، علی (۱۴۰۳). مطالعه تطبیقی حق فسخ ناشی از عدم انطباق مادی کالا در کنوانسیون ۱۹۸۰ وین، دستورالعمل ۲۰۱۹ اتحادیه اروپا و حقوق ایران. مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر، 37 (15)، ۱96-۱61.
    2. طباطبایی، علیرضا و اکوان، عرفان (1404). امکان‌سنجی مالیت دارایی‌های دیجیتال غیرمثلی در تراز فقه و حقوق ایران. حقوق فناوری‌های نوین، 6 (12)، 251-273.

     Doi:10.22133/mtlj.2025.462565.1340

    1. یوسف‌زاده، احمد (1403) .ماهیت حقوقی توکن‌های غیرمثلی و انتقال آن در حقوق ایران و ایالات متحده آمریکا .پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، 12 (46)، 163-194.

    Doi: 10.22054/JPLR.2024.81075.2863

    رساله

    1. ایوبی، ستاره (1403) .دگرگونی نگرش به اموال در بستر دیجیتال. رسالۀ دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشگاه مازندران، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی.

     

    ب) منابع عربی

    کتاب‌ها

    1. شهید ثانی، زین‌الدین بن علی بن محمد الطوسی (بی‌تا) .مسالک الافهام فی شرح شرائع الاسلام. ج ۱، تهران: بی‌تا.
    2. طباطبایی یزدی، سیدکاظم (1421) .حاشیۀ مکاسب. قم: مؤسسۀ اسماعیلیون.
    3. طوسی، محمد بن حسن (1386). المبسوط فی فقه الامامیه .قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامی وابسته به جامعۀ مدرسین حوزۀ علمیه قم.
    4. محقق حلی، جعفر‌بن حسن (1408) .شرائع الإسلام فی مسائل الحلال و الحرام. ج ۲، قم: اسماعیلیان.

    ج) منابع انگلیسی

    Books

    • Bridge, M. (2015). Personal Property Law. Oxford University Press.
    • Bridge, M.; Gulliger, L.; Low, K., & McMeel, G. (2021). The Law of Personal Property (3rd). Sweet & Maxwell.
    • Fox, D., & Green, S. (2019). Cryptocurrencies in Public and Private Law. Oxford University Press.
    • Honoré, A. M. (1961). In Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press.
    • Marinotti, L. (2021). Digital Property Law: Legal Innovations for Virtual Assets. Oxford Press.
    • Penner, J. E. (1997). The Idea of Property in Law. Oxford University Press.
    • Scholz, M. (Ed.), et al. (2022). Die Elster-Luppe-Aue – Eine Wertvolle Auenlandschaft: Ergebnisse der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung aus dem Projekt Lebendige Luppe (UFZ-Bericht No. 2/2022). Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ).
    • Zimmermann, R. (1996). The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Oxford.

    Articles

    • Allen, J. (2019). Property in Digital Coins. European Property Law Journal, 5 (1), 1–19. Doi:10.1515/eplj-2019-0005
    • Allen, J. G.; Rauchs, M.; Blandin, A., & Bear, K. (2020). Legal and Regulatory Considerations for Digital Assets. University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, 1–53. Doi:10.2139/ssrn.3772601
    • Allen, J. G.; Wells, H., & Mauer, M. (2022). Cryptoassets in Private Law: Emerging Trends and Open Questions from the First 10 Years. SMU Centre for AI & Data Governance, 1–34. Doi:10.2139/ssrn.­4206250
    • Chiu, I. H., & Allen, J. G. (2022). Exploring the Assetisation and Financialisation of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs): Opportunities and Regulatory Implications. Banking and Finance Law Review, Advance Online Publication, 1–44. Doi:10.2139/ssrn.4051912
    • Fairfield, J. (2022). Tokenized: The Law of Non-Fungible Tokens and Unique Digital Property. Indiana Law Journal, 97 (4), 1399–1436. Doi:10.18060/25677
    • Guadamuz, A. (2022). Perspectives on NFTs from the EU and UK. The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 45 (3), 301–332. Doi:10.52214/­jla.­v45i3.­10010
    • Ibanez, L.; Hoffman, M. R., & Choudhry, T. (2022). Blockchains and Digital Assets. EU Blockchain Forum, 1–45. Doi:10.2826/79064
    • Kaisto, J. (2024). Non-Fungible Tokens, Tokenization, and Ownership. Computer Law & Security Review, 54, Article 105996, 20–43. Doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105996
    • Kumar, S.; Rigg, G., & Green, K. (2022). The NFT Collection: The Rise of NFTs – Copyright Strikes Back? (Part 3). The National Law Review, 12 (256), 1–43. Doi:10.4467/22996834FLR.21.006.13800
    • Lins, B., & Praicheux, S. (2021). Digital and Blockchain-Based Legal Regimes: An EEA Case Study Based on Innovative Legislations– Comparison of French and Liechtenstein Domestic Regulations. Financial Law Review, 22 (2), 121–138. Doi:10.52214/jla.v45i3.10010
    • Michels, J. D., & Millard, C. (2022). The New Things: Property Rights in Digital Files? The Cambridge Law Journal, 81 (1), 1–16. Doi:10.1017/S0008197322000228
    • Moringiello, J. M., & Odinet, C. K. (2021). The property law of tokens. Florida Law Review, 74 (3), 607–643. Doi:10.2139/ssrn.3928901
    • Nevi, G. (2022). NFT – Non-Fungible Tokens: How Do Consumers React? An Exploratory Analysis for a Future Integrated Acceptance Model (Unpublished Manuscript), 10–25. Doi:10.2826/79064
    • Pinto-Gutierrez, C.; Gaitan, S.; Jaramillo, D., & Velasquez, S. (2022). The NFT Hype: What Draws Attention to Non-Fungible Tokens? Mathematics, 10 (3), 335. Doi:10.3390/math10030335
    • Popescu, A. (2021). Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT) – Innovation Beyond the Craze. Proceedings of Engineering & Technology Journal, 66, 1–36. Doi:10.2139/ssrn.4051912
    • Steiner, A. (2021). The Paper it’s Printed on: NFTs, Ownership and Conceptual art. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–32. Doi:10.2139/ssrn.­3997352
    • Szilagyi, K. (2018). A Bundle of Blockchains? Digitally Disrupting Property Law. Cumberland Law Review, 48 (9), 12–43. Doi:10.52214/­jla.­v45i3.­10010.
    • Toygar, A.; Rohm Jr; C. T., & Zhu, J. (2013). A new Asset Type: Digital assets. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 22 (4), 1–21. Doi:10.58729/1941-6679.1046.

    Awards

    • Ainsworth v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1965] AC 543 (House of Lords).
    • Fetch AI Ltd v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 2254.
    • Greene v. MtGox Inc., No. 1:14-cv-1437 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2014).
    • National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] A.C. 1175.
    • Osborne v. Persons Unknown and Others [2022] EWHC 1021 (Comm).
    • Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd [2020] SGCA(I) 2.
    • Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] NZHC 728.
    • com Global Digital Services Ltd v Arnold [2018] BCSC 1512.
Jurisprudence and Islamic Law
Volume 16, Issue 41
December 2025
Pages 1-40

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics