A Comparative Study of the Criteria of the Competence of Administrative Judge in Iran and France

Vaezi, Seyed Mojtaba

A Comparative Study of the Criteria of the Competence of Administrative Judge in Iran and France

Document Type : Scientific Paper

Author

Seyed Mojtaba Vaezi

Assistant professor of law, University of Shiraz.

Abstract

In systems of judicial duality and all legal systems that are experiencing a special judge for the administrative cases, the issue of e determining the scope of jurisdiction is always important. This question is not only dependent on the will of the legislator but the judge must also seek the appropriate criteria considering the foundations and requirements of his/her legal system.
In this article, by offering a new classification of criteria for the competence of administrative courts in several countries, and by a critical study, we show that the Iranian administrative judge may adopt which criteria by which reasons.
We present two types of criteria: judicial criteria and administrative criteria. Administrative criteria are related to method, aim, or administrative wrong and the quality of the relationship between government and citizen. Judicial criteria are considered to consist of the nature of remedy sought, nature of the judicial proceedings and personality of the parties.
In France interests of justice rather than administrative criteria are adopted while in Iran jurisdictional criteria are followed. In our opinion, the Iranian judge must not overuse a single type criterion.

Keywords

Ordinary Judge

Administrative Judge

Competence

Administrative Wrong

Court of Administrative Justice

الف- فارسی
1. امامی، محمد؛ استوارسنگری، کوروش؛ حقوق اداری، جلد 1، انتشارات میزان، چاپ دوازدهم، 1389.
2. زولر، الیزابت؛ درآمدی بر حقوق عمومی، ترجمه سید مجتبی واعظی، انتشارات جاودانه، 1389.
3. سلیمانی، مهستی؛ ضوابط تشخیص دعاوی قابل طرح در دیوان عدالت اداری، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه شیراز، 1390.
4. شمس، عبدالله؛ آیین دادرسی مدنی، جلد 1، انتشارات دراک، چاپ دهم، 1384.
5. صدرالحفاظی، نصرالله؛ نظارت قضایی بر اعمال دولت در دیوان عدالت اداری، نشر شهریار، 1372.
  1. Bell. J; 1996, Le debat au Royaume-Uni, in le contrôle juridictionnel des actes administratifs, Coopération juridique du Conseil de l’Europe, pp 73-94.
  2. CHAPUS. R; 2001, Droit administratif général, Montchrestien, paris.
  3. __________; 2004, Droit du contentieux administratif, Montchrestien, paris.
  4. __________; 1999, "Le service public et la puissance publique", in L’administration et son juge , PUF, 1999, pp37-75.
  5. __________; 1999, "Signification de l’arrêt Blanco" in L’administration et son juge, PUF, pp 29-36.
  6. CHEVALLIER. J, 1970, L’élaboration historique du principe de séparation de juridiction administrative et l’administration active, L.G.D.J, paris.
  7. _____________ ; 2000, Le service public, Coll "Que sais-je?", 5^e édition, PUF, paris.
  8. EISENMANN. CH; 1960, "Le rapport entre la compétence juridictionnelle et le droit applicable en droit administratif français", in Mélanges Maury, Dalloz et Sirey, Paris, pp. 379-403.
  9. Fromont. M; 1996, Le debat a' l'etranger, presentation generale, in le contrôle juridictionnel des actes administratifs, Coopération juridique du Conseil de l’Europe, pp. 42-57.
  10. GENEVOIS; 1989, "La compétence constitutionnelle du juge administratif et la police des étrangères", RFDA, N. 5, 1989, pp691-699.
  11. JULIEN-LAFFERRIERE. F, 1996, "La dualité de juridiction, un principe fonctionnel?", in Mélanges Roland Drago, Economica, Paris, pp. 395-426.
  12. JULIEN-LAFFERRIERE. L-E, Traité de la juridiction administrative et des recours contentieu, t1, Berger-Levrault, 1887-1888 (2e éd. 1896 ; réimpressio LGDJ 1989).
  13. Marcou. G, 2006, Caracteres generaux et evolution de la juridiction administrative en Europe occidentale, RFDA, janvier-fevrier, pp. 84-95.
  14. VAKIL. M; 1934, Les recours contre l’administration d’après le droit public persan, Th Paris.
  15. VEDEL; 1954, "Les bases constitutionnelles du droit administratif", E.D.C.E, pp. 21-53.