Private Law
Koorosh Ostovar Sangari
Abstract
AbstractOne of the issues raised after the establishment of the Administrative Court of Justice was who can appear as a plaintiff in the Administrative Court of Justice and whether state agencies can appear as a plaintiff in the Administrative Court of Justice. According to the rulings No. 37, 38 and ...
Read More
AbstractOne of the issues raised after the establishment of the Administrative Court of Justice was who can appear as a plaintiff in the Administrative Court of Justice and whether state agencies can appear as a plaintiff in the Administrative Court of Justice. According to the rulings No. 37, 38 and 39 of the Court of Administrative Justice in 1368, state agencies can in no way be present in the branches of the Court of Administrative Justice as a plaintiff. This decision was approved by the General Assembly of the Supreme Court in No. 602 in 1374, but the question was raised that what is the task of the state apparatus in relation to matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of Administrative Justice? In 2007, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court, Decision No. 699, tried to somehow open this deadlock and find a solution to this problem. However, these votes of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court created other problems, hence the vote of unity. Procedure No. 792 was issued in July 2016 and has somehow annulled votes No. 602 and 699. The author believes that vote 972 is a positive development in the separation of powers of the Court of Administrative Justice and public courts.Keywords: Procedural Unity Vote, Jurisdiction, Administrative Court of Justice, Public Court,State.
Public Law
mohamad reza rafeei
Abstract
The "uniformity of the judicial precedent", according to the provisions of Article 161 of the Constitution, is one of the aims of our judicial system. There are various ways to create uniformity of the judicial precedent, including issuance of Decision as a Unified Judicial Precedent. Both the Supreme ...
Read More
The "uniformity of the judicial precedent", according to the provisions of Article 161 of the Constitution, is one of the aims of our judicial system. There are various ways to create uniformity of the judicial precedent, including issuance of Decision as a Unified Judicial Precedent. Both the Supreme Court and the Administrative Justice Court have the legal authority to issue of Decision as a Unified Judicial Precedent, and so far, many of the two chambers have issued Decisions. However, the Decisions as a Unified Judicial Precedent faces many challenges that, given the important position of these Decisions in our legal-judicial system, it is necessary to address these challenges. The first step in achieving this goal is to identify the challenges that are the subject of this paper. The main question of this article is: What are the challenges facing the Decisions as a Unified Judicial Precedent? The results of this descriptive and analytical study show that some of the challenges of this institution are structured in nature, which can be inconsistent with the constitution, the lack of religious and constitutional supervision, the multiplicity of issuers and overlapping subordinates, inaccurate basics of Decisions, Lack of coverage of out-of-Decision conflicts. The unclear timing of entry into force and the extent of their impact on the past can be mentioned. Others are rooted in the functioning of the issuing authority, which points to Non-Sufficiency, Not timely, non-compliance with Choosing more important things, and lack of Strength.
