1ـ5ـ1ـ مصوبات قوه مجريهمطابق اصل 85

1ـ5ـ1ـ مصوبات قوه مجريه

مطابق اصل 85 قانون اساسي، مجلس شوراي اسلامي مي‏تواند تصويب دايمي اساسنامة سازمان­ها، شركت‏ها، مؤسسات دولتي يا وابسته به دولت را به دولت واگذار نمايد. در همين اصل، تأكيد شده است كه «در اين صورت، مصوبات دولت نبايد با اصول و احكام مذهب رسمي كشور و يا قانون اساسي مغايرت داشته باشد. تشخيص اين امر به ترتيب مذكور در اصل نود و ششم با شوراي نگهبان است».

بنابراين، در شمول اصل نظارت شوراي نگهبان بر اين نوع از مصوبات قوه مجريه نيز ترديدي وجود ندارد .

علاوه بر اين، دولت ‏براي اجراي قوانين، اقدام به وضع آيين‏نامه و تصويب‏نامه يا صدور بخش‏نامه مي‏كند كه به صراحت اصل 138، اين مقررات نيز نبايد با متن و روح قوانين كشور مخالف باشد. كنترل اين سه قسم از مقررات بر عهده چه كسي است؟ ذيل اصل 138، براي رئيس مجلس شوراي اسلامي نوعي حق نظارت بر اين قِسم از مقررات پيش‏بيني كرده است. در اين اصل آمده است: «... به اطلاع رئيس مجلس شوراي اسلامي مي‏رسد تا در صورتي كه آنها را بر خلاف قوانين بيابد با ذكر دليل، براي تجديدنظر به هيئت وزيران بفرستد». با اين وجود، در همين اصل، نظارت شرعي بر اين قِسم مقررات مسكوت مانده است. به نظر مي­رسد بر اساس اطلاق اصل 4 قانون اساسي كه تشخيص انطباق كليه قوانين و مقررات با موازين شرع را بر عهدة فقهاي شوراي نگهبان قرار داده است، نظارت شرعي بر اين مقررات نيز بر عهدة شوراي نگهبان است.

در اصل 170، ابطال مقررات مغاير با شرع، به ديوان عدالت اداري سپرده شده است، لكن بايد توجه داشت كه «ابطالِ‏» مقررات مغاير با شرع، با «تشخيص‏» مقررات مغاير با شرع متفاوت است. به همين دليل، ماده 41 قانون ديوان عدالت اداري مصوب 1385، مقرر داشته است كه ديوان در مورد مغايرت يا عدم مغايرت مقررات دولتي با احكام شرعي، بايد از شوراي نگهبان استعلام نمايد.[5] بنابراين، تشخيص مغايرت با شوراي نگهبان و ابطال مقررات مغاير، با ديوان عدالت است.

結果 (英文) 1:

1ـ5ـ1ـ resolutions of the Executive in accordance with article 85 of the Constitution

, the Parliament could be approved by the companies, institutions, organizations and اساسنامة daimi governmental or affiliated to the State Government. In this article, emphasizing that "in this case, government approvals and rulings should not be the official religion of the country with principles or to safeguard the Constitution. The diagnosis of this matter were mentioned in the sixth principle of the Guardian Council with ninety. "

Therefore, the inclusion of the principle of the Guardian Council on monitoring this type of legislation, as well as its Executive.

In addition to this, the Government for the implementation of the law, to the status of aeinnameh and tsvibnameh or the issuance of the looks that the directive expressly the principle of the regulations should not be 138, also with text and the spirit of the laws of the country of the opposite. I swear these three control provisions is the one responsible for what? The following article 138, to the President of Parliament a right of supervision over the قِسم of the pishbini regulations. In this article: «...» To inform the President of the Parliament seems to be up in the event that they are contrary to the laws of the translation with the Board for tjdidenzer, mentioned to send Ministers. However, in this article, the provisions on the supervision of the religious قِسم mscot. Seems to be based on the application of the principle of the recognition of the conformity of the Constitution 4 all religious principles with rules and regulations on Security Council fghahay HDH put surveillance on religious regulations, as well as on the Guardian Council of HDH.

On the contrary, the principle of waiver provisions of the Sharia with 170, Supreme Court Justice, has been entrusted to the Office, but it should be noted that «ابطالِ» ", in contravention of regulations with diagnostic of a religious» regulations contrary to the Sharia. For this reason, the Office adopted by the Supreme Court of Justice, article 41 of law stipulated that the Supreme Court, in 1385 in the case of governmental regulations controlling or non-controlling religious rulings, with the Guardian Council should call.[5] therefore, the diagnosis of the Guardian Council and the annulment of the provisions incompatible with the contrary, Supreme Court Justice.

結果 (英文) 3:

1 5 1 simplicity simplicity enactments of the executive power according to the principle of the 85 the constitution, Islamic Majlis approval can be permanent constitution سازمان­ها, companies, governmental institutions affiliated with the government or to the state.The same principle has been emphasized that in this case the government should not legislations with the principles and the provisions of state religion and or the constitution are inconsistent. The diagnosis of this principle in the way ninety and Sixth with the Guardian Council is ". Simplicity simplicityTherefore, in including the principle of the control the Guardian Council of the this type of of the legislations of the executive branch as well as there is no doubt. Simplicity simplicityIn addition to this the government to enforce the laws to the letter and the approval letter issued by the letter that he had clearly the principle of 138, these regulations should not be with the text and the spirit laws of the country.Control of the three of the regulations for the? Following the principle of the 138, for the head of the Islamic Parliament a kind of right to supervise the oath of the regulations has predicted. This principle says: ". . .to inform the head of the the Islamic parliament it seems to in the case that the laws against to find with reason, for review to send to the cabinet. With the same principle in control the canonical regulations will Berg.The می­رسد applied based on the principle of the constitution that the diagnosis of 4 consistent with all laws and regulations the rules could he extends the Guardian Council has legal control over the regulations also could the Guardian Council. Simplicity simplicityIn the principle of 170 cancellation regulations contrary to canon law administrative justice to the Supreme Court, but it should be noted that the "Florida" regulations contrary to canon law with diagnosis regulations contrary to canon law is different.For this reason article 41 law Administrative Justice Court act of 1385, has decreed by the court in the trends are inconsistent or lack of governmental regulations of the canonical with the Guardian Council inquiry.(5) Therefore contradicts the diagnosis with the Guardian Council invalidated regulations contrary to, with the Supreme Court justice. Simplicity