Document Type : Research/Original/Regular Article

Author

• Koorosh Ostovar Sangari

Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty of Law and Humanities, Islamic Azad University (Shiraz Branch), Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

Abstract
One 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.

Keywords

• Procedural Unity Vote
• Jurisdiction
• Administrative Court of Justice
• Public Court
• State

Main Subjects

• Administrative Procedure
• Civil Procedure
• Administrative Law