نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
1 پژوهشگاه قوه. پژوهشگر حقوق اداری
2 عضو هیأت علمی پژوهشگاه قوه قضائیه
عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the jurisdictionof administrative courtof justice in according to section 2of article10from the organization and procedure of administrative court of justice act is consideration of the objection to the final verdicts ofthequasi-judicial tribunals.Based on the prevailing judgmental procedure, the basis for hearing the claims of all three sections of Article10,is principle173of constitutional act, and because of the stipulation of "people's"complaints against the government in this principle, it hears only the complaints of citizens.Therefore, will not be heard in the court the objection of government officials to the verdicts of quasi-judicial tribunals as plaintiffs, and depending on whether the plaintiff is the government or the people, the review authority will be variable.In addition to creating a substantive challenge, this has led to numerous heterogeneities of the procedural unity verdicts to resolve this problem, which in itself hasbeen the root of many problems.Jurisdictions and requirements ofquasi-judicial tribunals are different from administrative actions and decisions,so it seems the grounds of paragraph2of Article10is not in principle173and is rooted in principle159and the need to have access to a court for persons. The theory presented in this article is that considering the position of the Court in judicial review on quasi-judicial tribunals and theconstitutional requirement for this control,it isnot appropriate to limit the Court's jurisdiction to principles170&173and to accept the Court o as an only court that control on administrative sphere, has general jurisdiction on quasi-judicial tribunals inaccordance with principles34and159. This view causes that the competent judicialauthority isnot variable according to the plaintiff.