Document Type : Original Article
Highlights
Optimization Administrative Justice Court based on the Status and Competence of the Oppression Court in Iran and Islam
Litigation against the government and government officials, due to its special characteristics, including the position of the government and the possibility of pressure on the judge of the court and thus violating the independence of the judge and judicial authority, throughout the history of the judicial system of the Iran and Islam has been special importance. Based on this importance, in different periods of the Iranian and Islamic judicial systems, the Oppression Court has been considered as a special judicial authority to handle this category of lawsuits. In terms of status and competence, the Administrative Justice Court can be considered the closest institution to the Oppression Court in Iran and Islam.
Based on descriptive-analytical studies, with recognizing the status and competence of the Oppression Court in the legal-judicial structure of Iran and Islam and adapting its characteristics to the Administrative Justice Court in the legal-judicial system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it was concluded that in different historical periods, the status of the Oppression Court was under the first person of the government or the person appointed by her. Because of this, the Oppression Court has been more strong and independent than the Administrative Justice Court. So, Placing the Oppression Court directly under the head of state or her appointee, in addition to guaranteeing the independence of this authority to handle complaints from government officials and units further, this change also provide the possibility of handling complaints against judicial officers and officials. Therefore, the prediction of the Administrative Justice Court under the leadership and its independence from the judiciary can be considered as a measure to strengthen the position of that court in the Iranian judicial system.
On the other hand, by predicting the competence of handling all people's complaints against government officials and agents and even disputes between those in power for the Oppression Court, the jurisdiction of that court has been wider than the Administrative Justice Court. In other words, the study of the distinction between the jurisdiction of the Oppression Court and the Administrative Justice Court also shows that the acceptance of the criterion for determining personal or formal jurisdiction (joint personality) for the Oppression Court had made this possible to file all complaints of individuals against government officials and units in that court and even this authority can handle the complaints of government authorities against each other.
Based on the above findings, it was suggested that in the constitutional amendment the Administrative Justice Court takes under the Supreme Leader and this court absolutely hear complaints against high-ranking officials specified by law and government units, also those complaints against other government officials based on their position or mission.
In the current situation, in order to improve the jurisdiction of the Administrative Justice Court, it was suggested that a personal-thematic criterion be reviewed in the laws and judicial procedures related to this Court, and that this criterion be applied in accordance with the requirements of the day.
Based on the above findings, changing the status of the Administrative Justice Court as an institution under the leadership and within the judiciary and developing its competencies as an institution to handle "all administrative claims" and "claims affected by public authority" can help to promote the status and competence of the Administrative Justice Court.
