Considering the ambiguities in the provisions of Articles 63 and 64 of the Administrative Justice Court Act, it is of particular importance to examine the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court's branches in dealing with the opinions of special administrative authorities. These ambiguities include the concept of "the presence of formal or substantive objections", "examination and adaptation of the issue in order to comply with the legal regulations" and "examination in terms of identifying the issue" in Articles 63 and 64, the lack of separation of the subject authorities in Articles 63 and 64, lack of attention to the multiple functions of some authorities, The lack of the task of the branches dealing with the decisions of the authorities is the subject of Article 64 in case of formal and procedural objections, Conducting legal proceedings instead of thematic proceedings or vice versa. A detailed examination and response to these uncertainties can help to improve the quality of proceedings and the justice in the Administrative Justice Court and improve the supervisory capacity of this institution to judicially control the decisions of the authority’s subject to Article 10 Clause 2 of the Administrative Justice Court act. The findings of this research, which was carried out with a descriptive-analytical method indicate that the recognition of dedicated administrative organization in terms of their competence and function and the separation of "administrative courts" from "diagnostic administrative organizations" on the one hand, and "legal" or "thematic" proceedings on the other hand, based on the type of authority and how to file a complaint The plaintiff can reduce ambiguities and improve the quality indicators of proceedings in this field.