خلاصة:
Recognizing judicial authority is subject to recognizing judicial action; because the executive and judicial powers, in relation to the legislative power, are considered law enforcers. On the other hand, in Iran's legal system, the position of judicial institutions has been discussed less frequently, and the classification of these institutions is not carried out with as much precision as it should be. In this legal system, we witness an increase in commissions, councils, and boards among judicial institutions, but it is unclear whether the legislator intended to establish a court or intended to foresee institutions for the enforcement of the law. Numerous substantive and formal criteria have been proposed for recognizing judicial actions, and basing each of them may disturb the legal order. In this research, while studying and evaluating the criteria for recognizing judicial actions, the country's judicial institutions are introduced within the legal order and, based on the selected view, each will be analyzed. The result is that judicial authority is a third institution that makes a decisive decision regarding a legal dispute by applying substantive and formal laws in a specific manner.
ملخص الجهاز:
The French Council of State, in the famous "De Bayo" ruling, considered decisions made regarding registration in the list of the veterinary organization to lack the characteristics and nature of decisions issued by a judicial authority, from the perspective of their nature and regardless of the form of expression;4 a position that was exactly repeated in the Constitutional Council and the Supreme Court of this country (Cadiet et al, 2010: 403).
becomes clear; that adjudication is inherently procedural, and the formalities in this task must be predetermined and known (Mohseni, 1389, Vol. 1: 55-60); meaning that the legislator must have foreseen it prior to the adjudication; in order for the concept of a third party to be realized in a judicial act and for this person to be impartial and independent, they must not only resolve the subject of the dispute in accordance with the law (Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code of General and Revolutionary Courts and Article 167 of the Constitution), but it is also necessary to follow legal procedural rules for this purpose.
In other words, this court, in cases where it decides as the highest administrative authority and also in the hypothesis where it issues a ruling as the sole administrative adjudication authority, its action is an instance of judicial acts, and its position is an example of a judicial authority or an administrative adjudication institution; because it expresses an opinion regarding a legal dispute and, in the position of an impartial and independent third party, makes a decisive decision through the specific application of substantive and procedural laws.
(
, 
, 
)
