Public Law
seyed mojtaba hosseini almousavi
Abstract
Developing the urbanization in Iran, particularly after the Islamic Revolution, has brought urban issues such as informal settlements, traffic congestion, and agricultural land-use changes to the forefront. One of the most significant challenges in this context is the multiplicity of decision-making ...
Read More
Developing the urbanization in Iran, particularly after the Islamic Revolution, has brought urban issues such as informal settlements, traffic congestion, and agricultural land-use changes to the forefront. One of the most significant challenges in this context is the multiplicity of decision-making bodies in urban affairs, particularly the separation of policymaking entities from implementing authorities. The lack of adequate enforcement for the decisions of policymaking entities, such as the Supreme Council for Urban Planning and Architecture, along with financial constraints in urban management, raises concerns that urban planning principles may be overlooked. The foundation of the urban legal system in Iran primarily traces back to pre-revolution laws. This study, employing a descriptive-analytical method, seeks to answer whether administrative adjudication has succeeded in addressing the deficiencies of the legal system by establishing dynamic and developmental practices. In other words, can administrative adjudication assist decision-making bodies in resolving urban challenges through forward-thinking interpretations and practical applications of legal texts in alignment with contemporary needs? An examination of the performance of the General Board of the Administrative Justice Court reveals that judicial oversight follows the concept of a "red light" approach. Literal interpretations of legal texts, disregarding the intent of the legislature.
Public Law
Vali Rostami; Sajad Karimi Pashaki
Abstract
IntroductionAs inferred from the principles of the Iranian Constitution, the general board of the Administrative Court of Justice (ACJ) serves as an authority for addressing claims brought by natural and legal persons against government regulations and systems. In this line, the legislator enacted procedural ...
Read More
IntroductionAs inferred from the principles of the Iranian Constitution, the general board of the Administrative Court of Justice (ACJ) serves as an authority for addressing claims brought by natural and legal persons against government regulations and systems. In this line, the legislator enacted procedural rules governing the ACJ in three stages in 1981, 2006, and 2013. These regulations established both specialized boards and the general board of the ACJ, primarily focusing on procedures related to cancellation requests—one of the key responsibilities of these committees.With the 2023 amendment of certain provisions of the law governing the ACJ, a new legal framework was introduced that grants credibility to non-cancellation rulings issued by both the specialized boards and the general board. This was achieved through Article 93 of the Law on the Administrative Court of Justice, which also mandates the publication of such rulings in the official newspaper.Adopting a descriptive–analytical approach, the present article sought to answer the following questions: What is the legal status and effect of non-cancellation rulings issued by the general board and specialized boards of the ACJ? Moreover, can such rulings be interpreted as affirming the validity and influence of the contested regulations?2. Literature ReviewThe amendment to the Law on Organizations and Procedures of the Administrative Court of Justice was introduced only recently, and there are few studies on the subject. For example, Motahari et al. (2022) examined the performance of the specialized boards within the ACJ, including non-cancellation rulings. Moreover, the Persian-language book Jurisdiction and Procedure of the Administrative Court of Justice (Molabeigi & Mohammadi-Ahmadabadi, 2023) explore the validity and impact of non-cancellation rulings issued by the general board and specialized boards. These discussions reference the amended Article 93 of the Law of the Administrative Court of Justice, which is analyzed and critically examined in this article.3. Materials and MethodsAs an applied research, the present study employed a descriptive–analytical method to analyze the data collected through library research, including references to academic and personal libraries, legal research centers, and various sources such as books, articles, journals, and websites.4. Results and DiscussionIn amending the Law on Organizations and Procedures of the Administrative Court of Justice, the legislator introduced a new rule while upholding the validity of non-cancellation rulings under Article 93 of the 2023 law. These rulings, issued by the general board and specialized boards before judicial review, are now published in the official newspaper as per Note 2 of Article 97 of the Law of the Administrative Court of Justice. Additionally, under Article 109, individuals challenging the implementation of non-cancellation rulings face potential penalties. However, the application of this new rule to non-cancellation rulings issued in the course of judicial proceedings—under the title of ruling to dismiss complaints—has effectively invalidated the enforcement of the rule in such cases. This raises concerns about the legitimacy of imposing penalties for challenging these decisions, as the implementation of complaint dismissals remains uncertain. At best, the provisions in non-cancellation rulings may be considered non-repeatable before the general board, specialized boards, and other judicial authorities. As a result, the non-cancellation of such provisions is not absolute. The principle of fair proceedings is required, especially in cases where new aspects emerge or litigants change. In particular, under Article 13 of the Law of the Administrative Court of Justice, matters that have already been addressed by the general board or specialized boards should be re-examined when new elements arise. This is crucial given the broad implications and regulatory impact of cases brought before the ACJ, which seeks to avoid the adversarial proceeding. Therefore, the validation of non-cancellation rulings under Article 93 remains subject to judicial scrutiny. The current procedure of the ACJ relies exclusively on legal and Sharia-based reasoning, assuming the validity of non-cancellation rulings issued by these boards. Consequently, under Article 85 of the Law of the Administrative Court of Justice, petitions challenging such rulings are generally dismissed.5. ConclusionLegal regulations governing the judicial process not only create effects arising from the handling of legal cases but also have broader social impacts, often leading to diverse—and sometimes conflicting—interpretations of laws and procedures. Over time, they can also give rise to practices that contradict the essence of the law yet become ingrained in judicial settings and public perception as seemingly legitimate rules. For this reason, legislators, especially when amending laws, must exercise great caution in determining the timing and implementation of legal changes, which is essential to ensure that amendments align with the original legislative intent and do not introduce ambiguities that could lead to conflicting interpretations, ultimately disrupting the judicial process.
Ali Mashhadi; Hormoz Yazdani Zunuz
Abstract
Introduction
The admission of evidence and the burden of proving a claim are crucial elements in asserting rights in any legal proceeding, including the administrative proceeding. Judicial supervision serves specific objectives that the administrative proceeding must align with. Given the disparity ...
Read More
Introduction
The admission of evidence and the burden of proving a claim are crucial elements in asserting rights in any legal proceeding, including the administrative proceeding. Judicial supervision serves specific objectives that the administrative proceeding must align with. Given the disparity in power between citizens and administrative bodies, the admission of evidence in administrative proceedings should be facilitated in favor of citizens. Moreover, that the burden of proof rests with the claimant is a principle that should be adjusted in favor of citizens, and the court should accurately identify the true claimant party. Furthermore, the court’s decisions should be supported by evidence-based reasoning. During proceedings, both parties present their evidence, and the judge should actively seek additional evidence when required. Merely reflecting the conclusion of reasoning in the court’s decision falls short of characterizing the decision as evidence-based. In this respect, the present study aimed to examine a number of decisions by the Administrative Court of Justice concerning the distribution of the burden of proof, the judge’s active approach in seeking evidence, and the incorporation of reasoning process in the decisions. The study tried to address the following research questions: How is the burden of proof distributed between the parties during court proceedings? And to what extent are the issued decisions based on evidence?
Literature Review
A review of the related literature revealed a Persian-language article titled “Critical Analysis of Consideration of Evidence in the Administrative Court of Justice” (Mohsenzadeh, 2018), which investigated the issue of evidence in the Administrative Court of Justice.
Materials and Methods
Using a library research method, the present study analyzed the textual content of decisions issued by various branches of the Administrative Court of Justice.
Results and Discussion
Not every citizen who files a complaint in the Administrative Court of Justice is necessarily the claimant; they may have initially been accused of a violation by the administration. In such instances, the administration is the actual claimant, despite the citizen initiating the legal complaint. Moreover, when the administration fails to fulfill its legal obligations, the plaintiff citizen is burdened with proving the nullity in the lawsuit. Therefore, imposing the burden of proof on the citizen is not commensurate with the objectives of administrative proceedings.
In instances where the administration accuses a citizen of a violation and issues a decision or some kind of punishment based on that accusation, the administration should provide clear and compelling evidence—as imposing punishment necessitates incontrovertible proof. Put differently, by assessing evidence presented by both parties with a margin of 51% favoring the administration and 49% favoring the citizen, one cannot subject the citizen to penalties such as fines, building demolitions, or the revocation of business licenses. In cases where there is no punishment for the citizen, the administration must be held accountable, providing a rationale for its actions and decisions. Consequently, the burden of proof cannot be placed on the citizen making the claim as practiced in civil lawsuits, but rather it is necessary that the judge get actively involved in seeking evidence.
In administrative proceedings, most documents are under the control of the administration, leaving citizens without access to them. It is thus becomes incumbent upon the judge to request those documents from the administration and thoroughly examine them. In administrative proceedings, the judge must not adopt a passive stance, merely accepting the evidence presented by the involved parties. Instead, they should take an active role in seeking out evidence pertinent to different aspects of the case. Furthermore, if necessary, the judge should delegate the investigation to judicial officers or refer the matter to an expert.
Act on Organizations and Procedures of the Administrative Court of Justice addresses this need in Article (7) by considering the referral of matters to experts, as well as in Article (41), which predicts any investigation and the use of judicial officers for such purposes. Additionally, Article (44) grants judges the authority to demand documents from the administration. These articles underscore the imperative for judges to get actively involved in seeking evidence and to leverage these capabilities to uncover the truth and establish certainty in administrative proceedings. These legal provisions are designed to create balance and empower citizens, who often find themselves in a disadvantaged position against administrative bodies wielding public power. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to use such legal provisions in administrative proceedings to safeguard the rights of citizens.
Additionally, the court’s decision must be accompanied by evidence-based reasoning. A reasoned judgment includes the evidence presented by both parties. Moreover, the judge shall be tasked with determining what evidence is the most powerful and persuasive and why. The judge should clearly state both the premises of reasoning and the conclusion in the final verdict. Merely using phrases such as according to the contents of the case and the arguments expressed, followed by the conclusion, does not meet the criteria of evidence-based, valid judgment. Judges must not merely rely on the reasoning process as it goes on in their minds, nor is it sufficient to simply state the conclusion. Instead, they must incorporate the premises, the reasoning, and the conclusion in the final decision.
Conclusion
The findings indicate that the burden of proving the claim weighs heavily on the citizen. The judge, however, rarely exhibited the requisite level of diligence in seeking evidence and leveraging the provisions outlined in Articles (7), (41), and (44) of Act on Organizations and Procedures of the Administrative Court of Justice. It was also found that the reasoning process underlying the court’s decisions was not clearly articulated in the decisions.
