Document Type : Research Paper

Author

• Mohjtaba Vaezi

Associate Professor, Public & International Law Department, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

Introduction

“Competence” is one of the few words on which the history of modern administrative law can be said to be based. Despite the importance of this concept, little attention has been paid to its principles and different aspects, and the main discussions have focused on the dual concepts of “ministerial power and discretionary power”. Given the place of foreign law in the field of administrative law, analyzing the origins and aspects of words can help prevent mere adaptation with no attempt at conformity. Examining the concept of competence and its types distinguishes public law, in particular administrative law, from civil law, and consequently makes it easier to identify the appropriate legal rules. The division of competence is not limited to the two types of ministerial and discretionary power. These divisions Affect the manner of judicial control, the type of civil liability regime, and the quality of the principle of legality. Contrary to popular belief, it has also been shown that the principle of "assumption of no authority" does not apply equally to all areas of administrative law. Competence also has its own reflections in the field of administrative contracts, unilateral actions, management of internal affairs of the administrative organization, public order, and public service, which, of course, should be examined on a broader basis.
Regarding discretionary power, valuable books have been written, which are mostly focused on the two types of discretionary and ministerial power, such as the book " Discretionary Power" by Dr. Ali Mashhadi in 2013 and the book "Discretionary Power in the context of Modern Public Law" " published in 2014 by Dr. Reza Fanazad.
Despite the importance of the two concepts above, it seems that diving deep into analyzing and clarifying the main concept of competence is still necessary and can help to provide appropriate legislation and more accurate judicial decisions in this area.

Method and Purpose

This article, through a comparative-analytical method, discusses the different types and functions of competence in the field of administrative law, after dealing with the concept and similar concepts. Also, with a library research method of data collection, we seek to provide as much precision as possible to the key legal concepts in the field of administrative competence, to further explain the nature of administrative functions and facilitate judicial supervision over them.

Main Text

Competence in the judicial sense, simply, is the lawsuits and complaints that a judicial authority can, and must, deal with.
With the provided definition, it should be possible to distinguish the concept of "competence" from "authority". The authority of a judicial authority can be considered as a set of legal facilities that a judge possesses and uses to discover the truth and verify the validity of the parties’ claims, in his capacity of adjudicating and after establishing his jurisdiction. Despite such a distinction in the field of judicial law, in the specific topics of administrative law, the concept of competence includes both the authority and scope of action of the agent. Therefore, it can be said that in Article 170 of the Constitution, in the phrase " or lie outside the authority of the executive power " authority means the field of action of executive authorities.
Administrative competence in its strict sense, i.e., inherent or special competence, regarding its content and raison d’etre, has three basic characteristics:
1- Undertaking affairs of others: The authority is basically a set of powers and duties that are provided to the administrative officer to perform a public mission or serve the public interest. Therefore, administrative competence is actually the power to administrate the citizens' affairs, or in the words of civil law, administration of another’s affairs.
2- Exclusive tenure of a mission: competence is the exclusive responsibility of a public matter which is determined by thematic, temporal, or geographical criteria.
3- Possessing legal powers and privileges: the mission of securing the public interest, in principle, requires the possession of a special privilege of authority.
- Categories of administrative competence:
1- Discretionary competence vs. ministerial competence: The most common and familiar division of administrative competence is ministerial and discretionary. ministerial competence in the shortest definition is where only one option is available to the administrative officer, and on the other hand, discretionary competence is where more than one option is available to the administrative officer based on which he has to decide and act.
2- Instituting competence (constitutional) vs. diagnostic competence (declarative): when discussing diagnostic competence, it is noteworthy to check its resemblance with the discretionary competence of the administration. There is a fine line between these two types of competence. The diagnostic competence oversees the identification and diagnosis of the subject and has similarities with the judicial function, in the sense that the relevant authority checks whether the subject of investigation is in accordance with the legislative decree or not. For example, the interview board for PhD selection or employment interview committees identify people who possess the scientific and moral capabilities required by the law. In other words, diagnostic competence is basically declarative in nature and therefore has a quasi-judicial function. Also, to prevent errors and personal conflicts as much as possible, diagnostic authority is usually assigned to a council of experts. The said council is  speciallyfounded based on this type of competence, and it has no other functions, so it can be said that the mentioned competence is the reason d’etre of these bodies of authority.
     On the other hand, instituting authority is where the administrative officer takes an initiative decision and creates a right or obligation or a new legal situation and so, it can be said to be a completely administrative measure. Also, the holder of instituting authority can be an individual officer or a council consisting of people. In addition, the range of functions of an officer with instituting authority is not limited to one or more cases, and to fulfill his multiple missions, he may have ministerial authority in some cases and discretionary authority in other cases.
3- General competence vs. special (inherent) competence: administrative competence in its common sense is special or intrinsic competence. The authority of the administration in the legal actions it takes can be divided into two main types according to the nature of its function and goals: general authority and specific or inherent authority of the administration.
General authority is the total authority that the administrative body has like any other legal entity. As a legal entity, the administration is considered to have a legal personality and should have the powers that every legal person needs to carry out its affairs. Competences such as concluding contracts and the capability to possess property rights to meet specific needs are among these common competencies.
specific or inherent competence of the administration are the powers that the administration has as an official for public service. Not only do private legal entities not have this type of authority, but in many cases, it is specific and exclusive to a certain public person, and for this reason, they are called the special authority of the administration. For example, supervising the standards of urban buildings is the responsibility of the municipality, and in this regard, it can change them if necessary where deemed necessary.
In the following, we have discussed the concept and basis of the principle of assumption of no authority in administrative law and we show that the said principle has different functions in different areas of administrative contracts, unilateral actions, internal affairs of the organization, public order, and public services.
finally, we have discussed the consequences of different types of competence and their relationship with the scope of judicial control, the regime of civil responsibility, and the principle of legality.

Conclusion

Administrative authority, due to belonging to the field of public law and conducting public affairs, has two important characteristics of exclusiveness and authoritativeness. In addition, other classifications of competence which have a practical impact in determining the applicable legal regime should also be recognized. Classification of competence into two types of instituting and diagnostic, on one hand, and into two types of general and special competence on the other, as well as identifying the characteristics of the principle of “assumption of no authority” in terms of its basis and function, require more reflection.It is needed  to separate the scope of the implementation of the mentioned principle in the two areas of public order and public services and consider the different circumstances. The public law nature of the concept of competence makes the role of the administration important in administrative contracts, unilateral actions, management of internal affairs of the organization, and the fields of public order and public services, so much so that one cannot expect acceptable function from administrative bodies if this concept is not accurately defined in the field of public law.

Keywords

• Discretionary Competence
• Instituting Competence
• Diagnostic Competence
• Specific Competence

Main Subjects

• Administrative Law