چکیده:
Humans are naturally fallible beings. In order to enable the correction of a judge's mistake or error in proceedings, and in pursuit of fair trial and as one of the rights and defensive tools of the parties to the lawsuit (usually the defendant), the legislator has provided for the possibility of re-examining the case, so that the coefficient of error and violation is reduced to the minimum possible level. In almost all judicial systems, the requirements regarding the right of access to court at the appeal stage have also been identified. Regarding the necessity or non-necessity of providing for appeals, three major groups can be identified: 1. The theory of non-acceptance, 2. The theory of absolute acceptance, and 3. The theory of relative acceptance. The first group believes that the parties must present all their evidence to the court, and the court must issue its verdict with utmost precision and within sufficient time; if it is assumed that an error occurs in the issued verdict, in this same vein, subsequent courts might commit the same error, which creates a circularity, and according to logic, such a thing is void. Supporters of the second group, who have more followers among judicial systems, believe that by accepting appeals, justice is achieved more extensively and correctly, judgments are executed with greater precision, and the opportunity for correction is given to the accused; however, supporters of the last group agree with the principle of appeal but believe that a distinction must be made between important and unimportant lawsuits; because handling unimportant lawsuits leads to prolonged processing times for cases and also increases the burden on appellate courts and unnecessary extra costs on the public budget. Furthermore, by eliminating unimportant lawsuits, appellate courts will have more opportunities for more accurate and fairer handling of important cases to uphold justice. In administrative litigation in Iran, complaints against verdicts throughout the years since the establishment of the Court of Administrative Justice have experienced many ups and downs; in 1360 (SH), verdicts were only subject to objection if they were issued to the detriment of the administrative unit. Subsequently, in 1378 (SH), with the amendment of the law, almost all verdicts were declared objectable by the parties. However, interestingly, in 1385 (SH), the legislator, with a complete turn from its previous position, accepted the principle of the finality of verdicts and considered final verdicts subject to re-examination in exceptional cases. Again, in 1392 (SH), the legislator revived appeals in the Court in an absolute manner. Overall, it seems that the legislator has somewhat fallen into 'excess' and 'deficiency' regarding appeals in the Court; either completely removing the appellate branches and considering the verdicts of the Court's branches as final, or considering all verdicts of the preliminary branches as subject to appeal. It seems that the appropriate solution in this regard is qualitative and substantive distinction (distinguishing administrative decisions from quasi-judicial decisions) and quantitative distinction (distinguishing important and unimportant decisions) of the contested decisions in identifying or rejecting the possibility of appeal (providing for appeal for important administrative decisions and removing appeal for unimportant lawsuits and objections to quasi-judicial decisions), while establishing preliminary and appellate administrative courts under the Court of Administrative Justice (as the supreme final authority) and dividing lawsuits based on importance and type of lawsuit among the aforementioned three levels.
خلاصه ماشینی:
It seems that the appropriate solution in this regard is a qualitative and substantive distinction (distinguishing administrative decisions from quasi-judicial decisions) and a quantitative distinction (distinguishing important decisions from unimportant ones) regarding the contested decisions in identifying or rejecting the possibility of appeal (providing for appeals for important administrative decisions and eliminating appeals for unimportant cases and objections to quasi-judicial decisions), while creating first-instance and appellate administrative courts under the Court of Administrative Justice (as the supreme final authority) and dividing cases based on importance and type of lawsuit among the aforementioned three levels.
The Law of the Court of Administrative Justice passed on 1385/9/25 Despite the aforementioned history of appeal branches, the legislator, by opting for the removal of the ordinary appeal stage and the finality of verdicts issued by the primary branches and the formation of determination branches, created another fundamental transformation in the stages of proceedings in the Court.
In addition to the possibility of appeal, other cases have been provided for in the law as a right of the parties to the lawsuit, which are considered a re-investigation of the case: such as whenever the judges issuing the verdict realize their formal and substantive errors, and if the Head of the Judiciary or the President of the Court identifies the final verdict of the Court's branches as being contrary to Sharia or law, a substantive investigation is conducted only once.
However, according to the law amending some articles of the Administrative Justice Court Act approved in [blank] 378a, the scope of appeal was expanded, and the verdicts of the Court's first-instance branches were considered subject to appeal at the request of one of the parties.
(
, 
, 
)
