1_ Translate the following legal text into colloquial Farsi 2_ Place the Persian and English text side by side in the table 3_ From the beginning to the end of the text, there should be an English sentence on the left side and a Persian sentence on the right side.  Side.
         4- The use of legal language for Persian translation 5_ Continue to the end of the text

            .4
Court of Justice of the European Communities
The European Court of Justice has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of the Treaties, the validity and interpretation of acts of the Community institutions and the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an act of the Council. Any national court or tribunal may request the European Court to give a ruling on these matters and courts or tribunals from which there is no appeal must make such referral.
The court consists of fifteen judges assisted by nine Advocates-General. There is also a Court of First Instance with twelve members established in 1988.5
Administrative
tribunals
In his book Freedom Under the Law, Lord Denning refers to administrative tribunals as
'a separate set of courts dealing with a set of rights and duties. Just as in the old days there were ecclesiastical courts dealing with matrimonial cases and the administration of estates, and just as there was the Chancellor dealing with the enforcement and administration of trusts, so in our day there are the new tribunals dealing with the rights and duties between man and the State.'
In the last fifty years successive governments have been concerned with regulating the social life of the community. Legislation for improving the gen- eral well-being has included the National Health Service Act, National Insurance Act, Education Act, Housing Acts, Town and Country Planning Acts, and Rent Restriction Acts. Although the collective good and welfare are admirable aims, the effect of much legislation is that, while promoting the public interest, it also circumscribes the rights of the private individual. There are now over 2,000 such tribunals which hear over 200,000 cases a year.
For example, Adams owns a field which the local Education Authority pro- poses to purchase compulsorily as a site for a technical college. Adams may wish to retain this field and to contest the right of the Education Authority to acquire it. If the field is compulsorily acquired, Adams may further dispute the amount payable to compensate him for his loss. Tribunals may decide (a) whether the field will be acquired, and (b) the amount of compensation.
Similarly, Black is injured at work which disables him from continuing his employment. He can claim a pension under Social Security legislation, but his claim may be repudiated by the Adjudication Officer on the ground that it is not within the Act.
Many such disputes occur between a private individual seeking to protect their own private rights and a Minister, Government department, local authority or other person to whom authority has been given by law to administer a particular Act.
It may be argued that disputes of this kind ought to be decided in the traditionally impartial and fair atmosphere of a court of law which follows a known procedure and applies a known system of law - common law or statute. But we find that such disputes are frequently decided by special tri- bunals, not on the basis of law, but on grounds of policy and discretion, andthat as far as possible the tribunals endeavour to reconcile the rights of the individual with those of the public in whose general interest the particular legislation may have been passed.
The position occupied by administrative tribunals and the type of law applied therein, known as administrative law, is a matter of great import- ance. At this stage, therefore, we shall examine some of the reasons advanced for their creation, and the advantages and disadvantages advantages which administrative tribunals display.
The reasons usually given for the establishment of administrative tribunals are:
(a) Ordinary courts are already overburdened with work, and additional jurisdiction would cause a breakdown.
(b) The costs of judicial proceedings in ordinary courts would be heavy. (c) The courts of law are slow and the procedure elaborate.
(d) Matters involving a public service are best administered by specialists in that service, e.g. doctors at a medical appeal.
(e) Policy decisions are best settled by an administrative authority.
The advantages of administrative tribunals are said to be:
Decisions are quick and delays are avoided.
(ii) The procedure is cheap; usually no fees are payable.
(iii) The informal atmosphere and straightforward procedure suit the litigant. (iv) They have wide discretionary power. This avoids the rigidity which the doctrine of precedent imposes on the courts of law.
(v) Tribunals are often staffed by experts: e.g. doctors on Pensions Tribunals determine disability or extent of injury.
(vi) Tribunals ensure efficient administration of social or economic policies found in statutes; while courts of law sift facts and decide on the basis of established rules of law different in character from social policy.
The disadvantages are said to be:
Administrative tribunals are sometimes held in private and lack publicity. Suspicion may be aroused as to ‘administrative justice'. (ii) The parties are sometimes prohibited from being represented by lawyers. The inarticulate person is therefore at a disadvantage in explaining his or her case. Legal aid is not generally available (see p. 65). (iii) Reasons for decisions are not always published.
(iv) Technical experts and administrators are not always capable of acting impartially or of sifting the facts.
(v) Tribunals sometimes include a civil servant of the Ministry which is directly involved in the dispute. He is, therefore, not sufficiently inde- pendent or impartial to give a just decision.
(vi) Rights of appeal are limited in some cases.
(vii) Discretion of a tribunal is sometimes so wide as to make decisions inconsistent and unpredictable.