نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• علی مشهدی ¹
• هرمز یزدانی زنوز ²

¹ دانشیار گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران

² دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران

چکیده

نظر به برخورداری اداره از امتیاز قدرت عمومی؛ در نظارت قضایی، قاعده «البینه علی من ادعی» باید به نفع شهروندِ شاکی تعدیل شود. هر شهروندی که در دیوان عدالت اداری شکایت می‌نماید الزاما مدعی نیست، بلکه ممکن است ابتدا با اتهامی دایر بر تخلف از سوی اداره مواجه شده باشد. در این‌ موارد، مدعیِ واقعی اداره است. لذا نهادنِ بار اثبات تماماً بر دوش شهروند، تناسبی با اهداف دادرسی اداری نخواهد داشت. بعلاوه، رای دادگاه باید متضمن استدلال بر اساس ادله طرفین و ادله اکتسابی شعبه دیوان باشد. پرسش‌ این است: در رویه دیوان عدالت اداری توزیع بار اثبات ادعا بین طرفین به چه نحو است؟ همچنین آرای صادره از حیث مستدل بودن چه وضعیتی دارند؟ در این تحقیق، تعدادی از آرای شعب دیوان عدالت اداری از حیث توزیع بار اثبات ادعا و همچنین از حیث مستدل بودن مورد بررسی قرار گرفته‌اند. نتایج حاصله نشان می‌دهند که بار اثبات ادعا بر دوش شهروند سنگینی می‌کند و مراحل استدلال بر اساس ادله نیز در متن اکثر آرای مورد بررسی، تمام و کمال قید نشده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• بار اثبات ادعا
• دادرسی اداری
• مستدل بودن رای
• دیوان عدالت اداری
• ادله اثبات دعوا

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Burden of Proof and Evidence-Based Reasoning in the Decisions of the Administrative Court of Justice

نویسندگان [English]

• Ali Mashhadi ¹
• Hormoz Yazdani Zunuz ²

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

² Ph.D. Student, Public Law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.

چکیده [English]

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.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Burden of Proof
• Administrative Proceedings
• Judgment Validity
• Administrative Court of Justice
• Evidences of Proof