Abdolmajid Soudmandi
Abstract
After half a century from the first provisions on air pollution of Iranian cities in the Amendment of Some Provisions and Addendum of New Provisions to the Municipal Act of 1967 and on the basis of experiences gained from 22-year enforcement of the Prevention of Air Pollution Act of 1995, the Iranian ...
Read More
After half a century from the first provisions on air pollution of Iranian cities in the Amendment of Some Provisions and Addendum of New Provisions to the Municipal Act of 1967 and on the basis of experiences gained from 22-year enforcement of the Prevention of Air Pollution Act of 1995, the Iranian legislative and executive branches passed the Clean Air Act in 2017.Although the Clean Air Act contains many innovations and strengths, unfortunately, this Act has also some weaknesses and irregularities which failure to eliminate them would make its implementation hard and its success impossible. Some of the most important irregularities and weaknesses of this Act that will be examined in this paper include the following: reducing the speed of the detection of emergency situations of air pollution and taking necessary measures in these situations; conflicts and overlapping between some of its Provisions, underestimating the social, economic and political consequences of combating air pollution in some cases; failure to grant the general right of public interest litigation to the Department of Environment; numerous irregularities in criminal provisions, notably the lack of prediction of prompt judicial proceedings and non-use of imprisonment punishment, and finally; ambiguity in some Provisions of the said Act.
Abdolmajid Soudmandi
Abstract
Reasonableness and Legality of judicial decisions are among the most accepted legal principles governing judicial and quasi-judicial institutions, and the Administrative Justice Court (“AJC”) as a judicial institution is subject to this rule. However, it is undeniable that in some cases, ...
Read More
Reasonableness and Legality of judicial decisions are among the most accepted legal principles governing judicial and quasi-judicial institutions, and the Administrative Justice Court (“AJC”) as a judicial institution is subject to this rule. However, it is undeniable that in some cases, the General Board of Administrative Justice Court (“GBAJC”) has evaded or neglected to abide by this rule.
Failure of the GBAJC to comply with this rule could be occurred in invocation of any of the legal evidences. In this paper, by studying the types of violation of this rule by the GBAJC in invocation of "the Constitution", it was seen that this violation resulted in issuing doubtful or even wrongful decisions. Hence, given that the GBAJC is the unique referee for complaint of governmental regulations, and its judgments are not supervised by any other institutions, it can be rightly expected that it shall try harder for precise observance of this rule; in particular, given that the consequences of its wrongful judgments in revocation or not revocation of governmental regulations not only is confined to the plaintiff itself but can affect a large group of people.
Keywords: Reasonableness of Judicial Decisions, the General Board of Administrative Justice Court, Judgment, the Constitution, the Guardian Council.
