This article conducts a comparative analysis of administrative procedures in Iran and France, focusing on the roles of Iran's Administrative Justice Court and France's Council of State (Conseil d’État). As primary institutions for judicial oversight of administrative actions, both entities play a critical role in ensuring the rule of law and protecting citizens' rights. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and drawing on credible domestic and international sources, this study compares the structure, jurisdiction, procedural mechanisms, and legal status of these institutions. Iran's Administrative Justice Court, established under Article 173 of the Constitution, addresses grievances against unlawful decisions of executive bodies but lacks advisory functions and a comprehensive appellate system. In contrast, the French Council of State not only performs judicial duties but also provides legal counsel to the government, benefiting from greater legal stability. The findings indicate that the procedural framework of Iran's Administrative Justice Court, reliant on regulations issued by the Head of the Judiciary, is flexible yet unstable, whereas the Council of State operates under consistent parliamentary legislation. Legal representation in France is mandatory and specialized, while in Iran it is optional and less specialized. The study recommends that Iran's Administrative Justice Court enhance its efficiency by incorporating advisory roles and establishing a robust appellate system. This analysis contributes to a deeper understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each system in achieving administrative justice.