Administrative Justice Court

Background: Article 5 Commission of Iran’s Supreme Council for Urban Development and Architecture is a quasi-judicial authority that has a close connection with the rights of citizens. It has composed a part of the claims that most of the related lawsuits are of great importance with great amounts. There is a certain procedure for the authorities, such as the Dispute Resolution Council, which deals with claims under 20 million toman, but unfortunately, for there is no such a procedure for important cases of municipal commissions, including Article 5 Commission. Therefore, according to Article 170 of the Constitution, natural or legal entities may request the annulment of the matter against governmental and municipal regulations in the General Board of the Court. In this respect, the owners whose rights are not observed in accordance with the rules and regulations can complain to the Supreme Council's decisions in the General Board of the Court and thereby request the annulment of the Article 5 Commission’s approvals. Methodology and Objective: In the present article, the authors will review the annulment of the approvals of Article 5 Commission of Iran’s Supreme Council for Urban Development and Architecture by the Administrative Justice Court, using an analytical-descriptive research methodology as a library study through note-making method. Findings and Conclusions: In the review of the annulled approvals, it can be found that failure to observe the proprietary and the acquired rights of individuals established by the Supreme Council and Article 5 Commission during the recent years may lead to the outcome of complaints by the owners and the annulment of approvals. Finally, the annulment of the Article 5 Commission’s approvals by the Administrative Justice Court can be summarized in the following four major factors: 1. The approvals for delegating the authorities of the Article 5 Commission; 2. The approvals contrary to the urban development principles of the Article 5 Commission; 3. The approvals contrary to the Sharia of Islam; 4. The Gratuitous possession Approvals of the Article 5 Commission of Iran’s Supreme Council for Urban Development and Architecture.

This essay comparatively examines the systems of judicial review over the principle of proportionality in administrative law to identify how different countries balance governmental efficiency with citizens' rights. Using a descriptive-analytical approach, this article seeks to answer the fundamental question of how differences in legal and constitutional traditions affect judicial review and the application of the principle of proportionality, and what impact these differences have on the relationship between the state and its citizens. The research findings indicate that the principle of proportionality in European systems allows for more active judicial oversight through a structured test (suitability, necessity, balancing), whereas the United States, by emphasizing reasonableness and doctrines like Chevron deference, grants greater discretionary latitude to administrative bodies. Iran has a distinct approach that combines religious values with administrative efficiency. Developments such as Kenya’s move toward the proportionality test demonstrate a trend toward more structured oversight. The concept of the margin of appreciation, particularly in human rights law, combines national decision-making power with judicial review to ensure compliance with democratic principles. The results show that despite the diversity in approaches, the shared objective of legal systems is to ensure reasoned and balanced decision-making, which strengthens the rule of law and protects citizens' rights through judicial review.