Introduction

In order to make a decision, the administrative authority must act within the legal framework governing that decision. However, administrative acts are always susceptible to various issues, which judicial review seeks to address. These issues include incompetence, substantive violations of the law, procedural violations of the law (such as failure to adhere to necessary procedures), transgression of the limits of authority, and abuse of authority within legal systems. Among these violations, abuse of authority is undoubtedly the most challenging. Its form and nature complicate verification, so the judicial precedent of the Court of Administrative Justice is less inclined to verify or annul administrative acts based on allegations of abuse of authority. In this respect, the present research aimed to determine whether a clear concept of abuse of authority exists in modern administrative law and to define the criteria associated with it.

Literature Review

The literature on comparative administrative law and several articles have addressed the topic primarily from a descriptive perspective regarding this institution in various legal systems. In a rather different approach, the present study aimed to examine and critique similar concepts based on a specific understanding of abuse of authority. Furthermore, the study reviewed the relevant concepts to extract criteria for addressing abuse of authority and develop a unique theory that may differ from the corresponding concepts in private law and the concept of abuse of authority in other legal systems. This approach highlights the innovative aspect of the present inquiry.

Materials and Methods

The present study used a descriptive–analytical approach and library resources to collect and analyze the data.

Results and Discussion

An examination of the development of abuse of authority in legal doctrines and judicial precedents suggests that such a clear concept may not exist. Instead, the findings revealed that the concept of abuse of authority is often analyzed in relation to other concepts, contributing to its ambiguity. The results helped propose a comprehensive theory regarding the abuse of authority by administrative bodies, including its indicators and criteria. The first criterion is the discretionary power of the administrative authority. Abuse is particularly relevant in the context of discretionary power, as it is the administrative authority that must determine whether an administrative act serves the public interest—the decision in which the potential for abuse arises. The question also arises as to whether the malicious intent on the part of the administrative authority is a necessary condition for establishing abuse of authority. While the existence of general malice is typically assumed in cases of abuse of authority, the abuse of administrative position requires evidence of both general and specific malice, as necessary conditions to be proven. Furthermore, if the administrative authority seeks to realize interests other than public interests with malicious intent, should there also be an intention to harm public interests? There is inherently an intent to harm, as pursuing benefits that do not align with the public interest is always associated with the intention to undermine the public good.

Conclusion

Abuse of authority is a complex and often vague concept within administrative law. To reach a full understanding of the concept, it is insufficient to rely solely on the existing components and criteria that define abuse of authority. A comprehensive explanation must also consider closely related concepts, such as the abuse of rights in Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian private law, as well as principles like reasonableness, legality, fairness, and procedural propriety. This includes analyzing situations where the administrative authority cites relevant versus irrelevant considerations, as well as instances of deviation in the exercise of authority and substantive errors.
By drawing on similar concepts from civil law and other legal systems, we can develop a robust theory that aligns with the indicators of modern public law. Moreover, it is important to examine the relationship between this theory and issues such as occupational abuse, along with related concepts like administrative aims and causes, while clearly delineating their distinctions. The foundational elements of this theory of abuse of authority appear to be the existence of administrative authority, malice, and the intent to harm. Notably, all these elements revolve around the concept of public interest- which serves as the cornerstone of modern administrative law-diverging from their traditional meanings. Consequently, it is feasible to formulate a comprehensive theory that facilitates the recognition of abuse of authority in various aspects of administrative acts and positions. The proposed theory can also provide the necessary enforcement guarantees to address instances of abuse.