نوع مقاله : مقاله مروری

نویسنده

استادیار حقوق عمومی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

وکالت در رسیدگی های قضایی در زمره یکی از حقوق اساسی رویه ای یا شکلی است که خادم حق های ماهوی می باشد.سوال قابل طرح این است که وکالت در رسیدگی های اداری چه مفهوم و مختصاتی دارد؟ این مقاله با استفاده از روش تطبیقی و تحلیلی در پی پاسخ به این پرسش است. دستاورد این نوشتار نشان می دهد که در نظام حقوقی انگلستان و استرالیا بهره مندی از وکیل در رسیدگی های اداری حق مطلق نیست. در صورتی که قوانین مصوب پارلمان وکالت را در رسیدگی های اداری شناسایی نکرده باشند، در اختیار دیوان های اداری است، با وجود این، رویه قضایی دادگاه ها در مواردی که انصاف رویه ای وجود این حق را ایجاب می نماید، با حساسیت برخورد نموده اند. رویه دادگاه اروپایی حقوق بشر نشان می دهد که مفهوم دادرسی منصفانه و حق بهره مندی از وکیل به رسیدگی های اداری نیز تسری یافته است. در نظام حقوق ایران وکالت یکی از حقوق اساسی رویه ای است که در قانون اساسی شناسایی شده و با توجه به رویکرد شورای نگهبان این حق قابل تعمیم به دادگاه های اداری نیز می باشد. رویه قضایی دیوان عدالت اداری نیز همین رویکرد را تایید نموده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Right to Attorney in Administrative Proceedings

نویسنده [English]

  • Alimohamad Fallahzadeh

Assistance Professor of Public Law, Allameh Tabatabaiee University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

The right to attorney in judicial proceedings is one of the basic procedural rights that serves substantive rights. The question that can be raised here is “What is the meaning and characteristics of the attorney in administrative proceedings? Using a comparative and analytical method, the present article seeks to answer the above question. The findings of this article show that the British and Australian legal systems do not recognize the right to attorney in administrative proceedings as an absolute right. If the laws do not recognize the power of attorney in the administrative proceedings, it will be up to administrative courts. However, in cases where procedural fairness requires this right, the courts are sensitive to it in their judicial procedure. The procedure of the European Court of Human Rights also shows that the concepts of fairness of the proceedings and the right to attorney have been extended to administrative proceedings as well. In the Iranian legal system, the attorney is one of the basic procedural rights recognized by the Constitution and according to the approach of the Guardian Council, this right can be extended to administrative courts as well. The judicial procedure of the Court of Administrative Justice also confirms this approach and treats it as a judicial proceeding.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Attorney
  • Administrative Proceeding
  • European Court of Human Rights
  • the Court of Administrative Justice

A) Books and articles

Ashworth, Andrew. Eroding the Structure of the European Convention. Oxford: Hart publishing, 2013.
Brynard, D. J. “The Duty to Act Fairly: a Flexible Approach to Procedural Fairness in Public Administration.” Administration Publica 18, no. 4 (November, 2010): 124-140.
Craig, Paul. Administrative law. Edinburgh: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008.
Emami, Mohammad and Kourosh Ostovarsangari. Administrative Law. Tehran: Mizan, 2016.
Forsyth, Christopher. “Procedural Justice in Administrative Proceedings and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.” the Cambridge Law Journal 62, no. 2 (August, 2003): 24-244.
Galligan, D. J. Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Groves, Matthew and H. P. Lee. Australian Administrative Law: Fundamentals, Principles, and Doctrines. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Hadavand, Mehdi and Farhad Jam. The Legal System of Addressing the Disputes of the Contractors with the Social Welfare Organization. Tehran: Jangal, 2011.
Handbook for monitoring administrative justice. Warsaw: OSCE Publishing, 2013.
Khani Valizadeh, Saeed. “The Right to Attorney in Administrative Proceedings in Iran and France.” the Journal of Administrative Law 6, no.17 (December, 2018): 181-206.
Latimer, Paul, Michael Hocken and Stephen Marsden. “Legal Representation in Australia before Tribunals, Committees and other Bodies.” Murdoch University Law Journal 14, no. 2 (2007): 122-141.
Li-Ann, Thio. Law and the Administrative State. Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1999.
Rostami, Vali, Moslem Aghaei and Hassan Lotfi. Fair Proceeding in Special Administrative Authorities in Iran. Tehran: The University of Tehran, 2009.
Shams, Abdullah. “The Principle of Correspondence.” Legal Research 5, no. 35-36 (November, 2002): 59- 86.

B) Documents

“Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act”, (2001).
“Bertuzzi v. France”, Last Accessed November 27, 2022, https://jurinfo.jep.gov.co/ normograma/compilacion/docs/pdf/CASE%20OF%20BERTUZZI%20v.%20FRANCE.PDF
“Boxus and others v. Région wallone”, Last Accessed November 27, 2022, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A62009CJ0128
“Mirovni Institut v. Slovenia”, Last Accessed November 27, 2022. https://laweuro.com/?p=8860
“Osborn v. The Parole Board”, Last Accessed November 27, 2022, https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2011-0147-judgment.pdf
“Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala”, Last Accessed November 27, 2022, https://jade.io/article/68226
“Resolution 78(8) on legal aid and advice”, Last Accessed November 27, 2022, https://rm.coe.int/cmres-78-8-on-legal-aid-and-advice/1680a43b71
“Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to fair trial”, UN Human Rights Committee, General comment no. 32, (2007).
“R V. Board of Appeal Ex parte Kay”, Last Accessed November 27, 2022, https://jade.io/article/62570
“R V. commissioner of police of North en territy ex parte Edwards”, Last Accessed May 31, 2022, http://www.eccourts.org/wp-content/files_mf/19.07.99 adolphedwardsetalvcommissionerofpolice.pdf
“R V. Secretary of state for home department, expert Tarrant”, Last Accessed November 27, 2022 https://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-home-secretary-ex-parte-tarrant-and-others-1985/
“State of South Australia v. Slipper”, Last Accessed November 27, 2022, https://jade.io/article/108053
“Van der Mussele v. Belgium”, Last Accessed November 27, 2022, https://compendium.itcilo.org/en/compendium-decisions/european-court-of-human-rights-van-der-mussele-v-belgium-application-no-8919-80-23-november-1983-series-a-no-70/at_download/attachedfile
“Wabz V. Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs”, Last Accessed November 27, 2022, https://jade.io/article/100709
CAPTCHA Image