Instances of Violations of Fair Trial in Municipal Administrative Courts

The existence of clear and specific procedural rules and adherence to the related formalities is considered one of the fundamental principles of trial, and any failure to comply with these rules contradicts the rights of the parties and is contrary to the principles of a fair trial. Municipal administrative courts are among the most important quasi-judicial or specialized bodies, and examining their procedural rules is highly significant due to their direct connection with the public's rights. Therefore, the aim of this article is to investigate instances of violations of fair trial in municipal administrative courts. This article is descriptive-analytical and uses a library-based method. The findings suggest that uniformity of the members issuing the initial and appellate judgments, the substantiation and reasoning of the ruling, the financial dependency of the members with voting rights on the municipality, failure to provide adequate time and resources for defense preparation, the lack of public hearings, and the lack of independence and impartiality are among the most significant instances of violations of fair trial in municipal administrative courts. Given the similarities between specialized administrative bodies and general courts, it seems that certain principles should be applied in municipal administrative trials, such as public hearings, independence and impartiality of administrative bodies, accessibility of administrative courts, the right to adequate time for defense, substantiation and reasoning of issued rulings, and the right to appeal.