Abstract

This paper discusses the nature of administrative judiciary through Decision No (10) of 2013 which stipulates considering administrative courts a part of regular courts and the effect of this decision on the scope of referral due to lack of jurisdiction, specifically, referral between civil courts and administrative courts. This paper found, through evaluating the decision of the constitutional court, that the considerations this decision was based on are invalid and according to the provisions of the constitution and the regular Court Establishment Law, the administrative judiciary is merely a judicial entity independent from regular courts and could not be a part thereof. However, despite the necessity of abiding to the decision of the constitutional court, we concluded that it has no effect on deciding inadmissibility of referral due to lack of jurisdiction between regular and administrative courts. Although case law, prior to issuing the decision of the constitutional court, considered that the basis of inadmissibility is that the provision of Article (112) of the Civil Procedure Law is limited to regular courts, which administrative courts are not a part thereof; considering that there are other justifications to decide inadmissibility of referral between civil courts and administrative courts, most importantly the difference of judicial procedures followed before each of these courts. Thus, in this paper we provided several recommendations, most importantly, the necessity of interference of the constitutional legislator by explicitly stipulating to consider administrative judiciary as an independent judicial entity. As well, to amend the provision of Article (112) of the Civil Procedures Law by explicitly stipulating not to include referral due to lack of functional competence.