Volume 21, Issue 73 And 74 (9-2016)                   __Judicial Law Views __2012__, 21(__59__): __224162 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

kashani J. the competance froum for hearing to responsibility case aginst state. دیدگاه‌های حقوقی 2016; 21 (73 and 74) :127-162
URL: http://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article-1-889-en.html
, kashani.lawyer@gmail.com
Abstract:   (4615 Views)
  • Apart from believe to be conflict or comfortability between nations and government, having regard to developing of Government functions, it is shown increasing of taking decisions and acts by government. These decisions and acts may both meet missions of government and provide with advance and improve for people and country, while could be caused damages and loss for some people and could result to liability of government. Although the complaint about the actions and decisions of government officials and agencies is in the jurisdiction of the Administrative Justice Court, and compensation for damages caused by actions and decisions of state authorities and authorities after confirmation of occurrence of the violation subject to the limits of their laws and authority is in the jurisdiction of the public courts. nevertheless, It can be seen that, firstly, some branches of the general Courts hear a compensation order without the need for confirmation of occurrence of the violation in the Administrative Justice Court, and sometimes Administrative Justice Court, issue a compensation order in addition to confirmation of occurrence of the violation. secondly, in determining the elements of liability in the Divan Divisions There is no unilateralism and, thirdly they act in parallel In the course of litigation, so that the boundary between the jurisdiction of the two references is not exactly clear. in January 19, 2016 The Supreme Court issued a decree No. 747 on establishing a procedural unity with respect to one of the examples of this issue, which answered a part of this question. This article tries to determine, in accordance with the above-mentioned judgment, how to litigate the responsibility of the state and demand compensation for individuals caused by decisions and actions outside the scope of the law and the powers of the state apparatuses in accordance with the principle of jurisdiction of the public prosecutor's office and The Court of Justice provides standards.


Full-Text [PDF 925 kb]   (24872 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Applicable Research |
Received: 2016/10/15 | Revised: 2019/01/27 | Accepted: 2018/01/20 | Published: 2018/01/20 | ePublished: 2018/01/20

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Judicial Law Views Quarterly

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb