Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Mahin Sobhani ¹
• Alireza Bazri ²
• Zahra Sobhani ³

¹ Assistant Professor, Department of Law, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

² LLM, Criminal Law and Criminology, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

³ LLM, Public Law, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

Abstract

Introduction

According to Article (31) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, access to adequate housing is the right of every Iranian individual and family; the government is obliged to make this right a reality, with priority given to those in greater need, particularly villagers and laborers. Based on this constitutional principle, securing access to housing has been a major concern of Iranian governments since the Islamic Revolution. Nevertheless, this goal has not yet been fully achieved. The right to housing (or the right to shelter) is recognized as an economic, social, and cultural right under Article (25) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article (11) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Some national constitutions, such as those of South Africa and Nigeria, explicitly affirm the right to housing as a fundamental right. In contrast, legal systems such as that of the United States largely omit such recognition, with the exception of a single state.
This divergence reflects a broader debate over the nature and scope of the right to housing as a human right. Consequently, it cannot be treated as entirely analogous to civil and political rights, or even to other economic, social, and cultural rights. In Iran, the fulfillment of the right to housing—declared as one of the key commitments of the Thirteenth Administration—led to the enactment of the Housing Production Leap Act in 2021 (1400 S.H.). Under Article (10), executive bodies are obliged to transfer—free of charge—the lands under their control that fall within the scope of Article (6) of the Law on the Regulation and Support of Housing Production and Supply.
 These lands must be transferred in the name of the government and for the benefit of the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development. The obligations set forth in Articles (6) and (10) extend to all ministries, government institutions and agencies, as well as companies wholly owned by the state. Based on these provisions, the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, relying on its own interpretation, has also moved to apply the law to lands administered by public universities. In this respect, several key question arise: notwithstanding Paragraph (a) of Article (49) of the Fourth Development Plan Act; Article (10) of the Law on the Goals, Duties, and Structure of the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology; Paragraph (b) of Article (20) of the Fifth Development Plan Act; and Article (1) of the Law on the Permanent Provisions of the Country’s Development Plans, should universities be regarded as governmental entities subject to this obligation? Moreover, given the reference to the lands under the control of the government, does this not suggest a distinction between proprietary (private) property, on the one hand, and public property allocated by the state to executive bodies, on the other? Finally, can the government impose the obligation of free transfer even with respect to the proprietary assets of such entities?

Literature Review

Some scholarly works have examined the legal status of property held by Iranian universities or discussed the concept of the right to housing. For example, Tabatabai-Hesari and Safizade (2021) discussed the issue in their article titled “Public, Private or Governmental Nature of Public universities’ Real Estate in Jurisprudence of Administrative Court of Justice.” Moreover, in “The Justiciability of the Right to Housing in International Human Rights Law and the Iranian Legal System,” Moshrefjavadi et al. (2022) dealt with the right to housing in international and national laws. Contrary to the previous research, the present study is broader in scope and represents a novel contribution to the existing literature.

Materials and Methods

This article employed a descriptive–analytical method, drawing upon relevant legislation, judicial precedents, and existing legal doctrines, to address the aforementioned questions and clarify the ambiguities surrounding the laws. To this end, it first examined the objective and mechanism of implementing the Housing Production Leap Act, which mandates the free allocation of state-owned land to the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development for the purpose of housing construction. Accordingly, it was necessary to determine the legal nature of the lands in question. The study then turned to the specific legal framework governing public universities and analyzed the implementation challenges associated with university-owned property. Particular attention was given to judicial practice, especially rulings issued by the General Court of Fuman and the Court of Appeals of Guilan Province concerning the properties of the University of Guilan.

Results and Discussion

The primary mechanism envisioned for implementing the Housing Production Leap Act involves the free transfer of land owned by governmental entities to the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, with the aim of redistributing these lands to households lacking adequate housing. From the outset, however, the law’s lack of clarity gave rise to significant ambiguities regarding its enforcement. Chief among these is the obligation of free transfer, which appears to conflict with the provisions of the Public Accounts Act. According to that Act, any transfer of state-owned immovable property must be approved by the Cabinet and must involve compensation; gratuitous transfers are explicitly prohibited. Furthermore, the Iranian legal system’s interpretation of the right to housing appears to diverge substantially from the core principles underlying this human right.
The right to housing entails not only protection from arbitrary government interference but also the government’s obligation to prevent third-party intrusions into individuals’ homes. However, imposing a duty on a government experiencing severe budgetary deficits to transfer land or housing to individuals for free is neither economically rational nor consistent with human rights principles. Given the government’s limited resources, it remains unclear how such valuable assets could be allocated—even through discounted or installment-based schemes—especially when the criteria for identifying eligible beneficiaries are themselves ambiguous.

Conclusion

A major criticism of the Housing Production Leap Act concerns its application to lands held by public universities. Many of these lands were not allocated by the government, but were instead donated or transferred by private benefactors for specific educational purposes. Empowered with broad authority under the Act, the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development has, in numerous cases, proceeded to expropriate university lands across the country merely upon request and without conducting any proper site assessments. This approach stands in stark contrast to two rulings issued by the General Board of the Administrative Justice Court in 2021, which explicitly affirmed that university boards of trustees have full legal authority over the transfer and management of property owned by universities. Accordingly, the decisions rendered by Chamber Two of the General Court of Fuman and Chamber Seven of the Guilan Province Court of Appeals— which invalidated the actions of the local Roads and Urban Development Office regarding an eight-hectare plot donated to the University of Guilan—are fully consistent with the principle of financial autonomy of public universities over their proprietary assets.

Keywords

• Right to Housing
• Housing Production Leap Act
• Law on the Regulation and Support of Housing Production and Supply
• Board of Trustees
• Lands under the Control of the Government
• Proprietary Assets

Main Subjects

• Public Law