عنوان مقاله [English]
Administrative judgment is functionally very similar in Iran and Lebanon. In the highest level of administrative judgment in these two countries, there are two authorities of “Administrative Justice Court” and “the Council of the State”. In both countries, in lower levels of administrative hearing, the specific authorities have special positions and do the dispute resolution and decision-making in various subjects of administrative affairs. These authorities have plenty of types and they do not follow a single judicial law order. The legal system of Iran encounters a chaos in the field of judicial review of “Administrative Justice Court” in the way that sometimes the general courts are the ultimate authority to hear the contest of awards and sometime the “Administrative Justice Court” does so. The AJC does not take a unique judicial procedure in processing the verdicts of these authorities and a divergence of decisions is observed in this regard.
The main purpose of this research is to compare the judicial review on the decisions of the specific authorities of administrative hearing in these two legal systems. The methodology of the research is comparative and descriptive- analytical. The most important finding of this study shows thatthe “Administrative Justice Court” of Iran unlike the “Council of the State” of Lebanon, has not accepted its competency about all the specific authorities of administrative hearings.