Contemplation on the Changes in Appeal in Administrative Justice Court

Man is naturally potential to make mistakes. For the purpose of correcting mistakes or error of the judge in the proceeding and to observe a justified prosecution and to observe fair trials as one of the rights and defense tools of the parties to the litigation (namely the losing party in the base), the legislator has predicted the possibility of renewing proceeding by aiming at minimizing the errors and factors in breach occurrence. In all judiciary systems, the requirements related in observing the accessibility to court have been recognized in the appeal stage as well. Given the different approaches regarding seeking to appeal, almost all the countries accepted unanimously. The administrative proceeding in Iran has been facing lots of ups and downs since the establishment of administrative justice court through the present time. In 1981, the verdicts could be objected only if they were against the administrative unit. Subsequently in 1999 and by amending the law, almost all verdicts could be objected by any party; however, the interesting point was that in 2006, the legislator had a completely different view from its former position and accepted the principle of certainty of the vote and recognized final verdicts liable to seek appeal in exceptionalcases. The legislator once again revived appeal in the court in absolute form. In sum, it seems that the legislator has shown excess and defect in handling appeal cases; the appeal chambers are either eliminated completely and the verdicts of chambers of the court are recognized as final; or all the verdicts of the initial chambers are recognized to be liable in seeking appeal. It seems a suitable approach in this case is making a severance in quality and nature (separating administrative decisions from semi-judiciary decisions) and quantitative (separating important and less important decisions) and the possibility of recognizing or rejecting appeal (predicting appeal for important administrative decisions and eliminating appeal for less important cases and objection to semi-judiciary decisions), while establishing initial and appeal administrative courts under the category of administrative justice court (as the higher appeal source) as wellas dividing the claims into three levels based on the case type and their importance.