Public Law Studies Quarterly

Government Litigation in the Administrative Justice Court: The ‎Supreme Court Full Bench Decision No. 792 ‎

Document Type : Article

Authors

Arsalan Dorji 1
Vali Rostami 2
S. Mohammad Mahdi Ghamami 3

1 PH.D. Student in Public Law. Department of Public Law, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

2 Prof., Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, ‎Tehran, Iran‎

3 Associate Prof. Department of Public Law, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran, (Faculty of Islamic Studies and Law of Imam Sadiq University)

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2023.352362.3234
Abstract
Since its establishment, the Administrative Justice Court has been the authority for adjudicating disputes arising from the exercise of public powers. It serves as a venue for the public to seek redress from the governing authorities in administrative matters. Based on Articles 170 and 173 of the Constitution, a judicial body has been established to address the grievances and complaints of citizens against government agencies and their officials. The ruling number 792 of the Supreme Court has recognized the right of the government to seek redress in the Administrative Justice Court. Following this judicial precedent, judges have focused on the fact that the government has the right to appeal against all rulings of quasi-judicial authorities. The main question of this paper is whether this ruling conflicts with the Constitution, fundamental principles of public law, and the principle of impartial trial. This paper, using a descriptive-analytical method, argues that this ruling, despite constitutional requirements, has challenged the understanding of the judicial system regarding the right of the public to seek redress, without regard to the fundamental principles of public law. The aforementioned ruling not only violates Article 173 of the Constitution but also has consequences, including the expansion of government authority and the limitation of citizens' rights and freedoms

Keywords

the administrative justice ‎court
groundwater ‎affairs commission
‎supreme court
complaint
‎judicial supervision.‎
Subjects

  1. References in Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. AbdollaHian O., & Rafiee, M.R.(2018). Solutions to promote fair proceedings in special Authorities. Tehran: Judiciary Research Institute (In Persian).
    3. Catherine, E. & Catherine, V. (2003). French legal system. Translate by Safar BeigZadeh, Tehran: Islamic Council Research Center (In Persian).
    4. Jaafaritabar, H.(2017). Demon in the glass. Tehran: Negahemoaser Pub (In Persian).
    5. Markaz Malmiri, A. (2015). Rule of Law concepts. Basics and impressions, Tehran: Islamic Council Research Institute (In Persian).
    6. Molabaigi, G. (2014). Jurisdiction and procedure of the Court of Administrative Justice. Tehran: Jungle Pub (In Persian).
    7. Peru R. (2005). French judicial institutions. Translator by Shahram Ebrahim, Abbas Tadayon and Gholamhosein Kooshki, Tehran: Salsabil Pub (In Persian).
    8. Shams, Abdollah (2001). Civil procedure, Vol. 1 & 2, Tehran: Mizan Pub (In Persian).

     

    1. Article
    2. Afshari, F., & Ahangar samakosh, M. (2022). Analyses of the grounds for hearing the at subject to section 2 of article 10 from the organization and procedure of administrative court of justice act. journal of modern research on administrative law, 4(12), 149-172 (In Persian).
    3. Ashtiany, M.H. (2004). Proceedings of the Council of State of France. Judgment magazine, 55_59 (In Persian).
    4. Bakhshi Jahromi, A., Zamani, G., Hayati, D., & Sadeghi, M. H. (2013). The ax of the law is at the root of water: a research analysis on the law of assignment of water wells without exploitation license. Iranian Water and Irrigation Engineering Journal, 18, 126-144 (In Persian).
    5. Emami, M., & Solimani, M. (2013). Criteria for recognizing lawsuits that can be filed in the Administrative Court of Justice. Judiciary Law Journal, 82, 9-38 (In Persian).
    6. Gafari Nadoshan, A., & Shirzad, O. (2019). Analysis and Review of the Unanimity Decision No. 792 of the General Board of the Supreme Court from the Development of the Jurisdiction of the Court of Administrative Justice to the Protection of the Public Interest. Administrative Law Quarterly, 8(25), 97-116 (In Persian).
    7. Hasanvand, M., & Asadi Ojagh, N. (2022). Feasibility of applying the principle of public proceedings in the Court of Administrative Justice. journal of modern research on administrative law, 4 (12), 10-83 (In Persian).
    8. Kaviar, H. (2021). Jurisdiction of the Court of Administrative Justice to the government's appeal from the decisions of special administrative authorities. Public Law Research Quarterly, 23(73), 279-302 (In Persian).
    9. Mohamadi M., & Pasban, M, (2022). Non-Judicial solutions to the abuse of rights in commercial companies. journal of modern research on administrative law, 10, 37-73 (In Persian).
    10. Mansourabadi, A. (2021). The concept and examples of public service officers, criticism of the decision of unanimity of procedure No. 798. journal of modern research on administrative law, 9, 65-88 (In Persian).
    11. Mohseni, H. (2017). Ritual justice, a research on theories of fair civil proceedings, Law Quarterly. Faculty of Law and Political Science, 38(1), 285-319 (In Persian).
    12. Nasiri, M. (2003). Some legal considerations about state-owned Companies. Islamic Council Research Institute, 38, Summer 2012, 163-174 (In Persian).
    13. Nejabatkhah, M. (2016). A challenge to the legal status of the Administrative Court of Justice in the resolution of disputes in the water sector. studies on energy law, 3(1), spring and summer, 135-147 (In Persian).
    14. Omidi, Jalil & Nikooie, S. (2017). “Definition and basics of publicness of criminal proceedings.Modares Humanities Quarterly, No. 3, pp23-37 (In Persian).
    15. Ostovarsangari, K. (2021). Unanimous decision 792 dated 24/9/99 of the General Board of the Supreme Court and Its effect on the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court of Justice and public courts.Legal Journal of Justice Course, . 115, .1-19 (In Persian).
    16. Rafee, M, (2021). The challenges of Decisions as a Unified Judicial Precent. Judiciary Law Journal, 114, 223-244 (In Persian).
    17. Rostami, V. & Kazemi, D. (2018). Evaluation of Principles of Right to Defence and Openness of Tax Trial in the Legal System of IRAN and UK. Public Law Studies Quarterly, 49(4), 1067-1088 (In Persian).
    18. Shahnai, K. (2006). The position of the Court of Administrative Justice in providing administrative and social justice. Legal Research Journal, 1, 41-59 (In Persian).
    19. Shams, A. (2018). The principle of correspondence. legal research journal of Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, (35-36), 86-89 (In Persian).
    20. Vaezi, M. (2014). The criterion of governance in Iranian administrative law. Shiraz University Legal Studies Journal, 7 (2), 199-220 (In Persian).
    21. Vaezi, M. & Hashemi, M. (2011). A comparative study of the jurisdiction of the general court in the interpretation and evaluation of the administrative decision in Iran and France. Shiraz University Legal Studies Journal, 4th term, (1), 165-184 (In Persian).
    22. Vijeh, M., & Amiri, M. (1997). Water proceedings in the commission for dealing with underground water affairs, challenges and solutions. legal studies of energy, 3(1), 168-141 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 1 - Serial Number 41
Spring 2025
Spring 2025
Pages 281-301

  • Receive Date 12 December 2022
  • Revise Date 31 January 2023
  • Accept Date 22 May 2023

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us