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.
