the competance froum for hearing to responsibility case aginst state

Author(s):
Message:
Article Type:
Research/Original Article (دارای رتبه معتبر)
Abstract:
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.
Language:
Persian
Published:
Judicial Law Views Quarterly (Law Views), Volume:21 Issue: 73, 2016
Pages:
125 to 162
magiran.com/p1789919  
دانلود و مطالعه متن این مقاله با یکی از روشهای زیر امکان پذیر است:
اشتراک شخصی
با عضویت و پرداخت آنلاین حق اشتراک یک‌ساله به مبلغ 1,390,000ريال می‌توانید 70 عنوان مطلب دانلود کنید!
اشتراک سازمانی
به کتابخانه دانشگاه یا محل کار خود پیشنهاد کنید تا اشتراک سازمانی این پایگاه را برای دسترسی نامحدود همه کاربران به متن مطالب تهیه نمایند!
توجه!
  • حق عضویت دریافتی صرف حمایت از نشریات عضو و نگهداری، تکمیل و توسعه مگیران می‌شود.
  • پرداخت حق اشتراک و دانلود مقالات اجازه بازنشر آن در سایر رسانه‌های چاپی و دیجیتال را به کاربر نمی‌دهد.
In order to view content subscription is required

Personal subscription
Subscribe magiran.com for 70 € euros via PayPal and download 70 articles during a year.
Organization subscription
Please contact us to subscribe your university or library for unlimited access!