الحدود القانونية لسلطات المحقق في الجرائم التأديبية وأثرها على مشروعية الجزاء: دراسة في ضوء التشريع الليبي وقضاء المحكمة العليا

Abstract

This research paper aims to determine the legal boundaries of the administrative investigator's powers during the disciplinary investigation phase, and to demonstrate the impact of exceeding these boundaries on the legitimacy of the resulting sanction, in light of the provisions of Libyan Labor Relations Law No. (12) of 2010 and its implementing regulations, the Law on Reorganization of the Administrative Control Authority No. (20) of 2013, and the established jurisprudence of the Libyan Supreme Court.

The study adopts an analytical and foundational methodology to examine legal texts, along with a case study method to track practical applications derived from the Supreme Court's rulings, with limited reference to comparative jurisprudence. The study reached several key findings: (1) The work of the administrative investigator is based on a tension among three jurisprudential theories (public service, presidential power, and procedural due process); (2) Libyan judiciary adopts a strict protective tendency, ruling absolute nullity of the sanction in the event of any substantial violation of defense rights, and even in some minor formal defects; (3) The dual investigation system (self-administration and the Administrative Control Authority) gives rise to jurisdictional conflicts; (4) There is a gap between theoretical legislative text and practical application, particularly regarding proper notification and qualified legal staff.

The paper concludes with specific legislative and judicial recommendations, most notably: amending Article (121) of the implementing regulations to prohibit non-lawyers from conducting investigations, codifying notification and access periods (at least 48 hours), resolving jurisdictional conflicts legislatively through the "first come, first served" rule, establishing specialized disciplinary courts, issuing a unified procedural guide for investigators, and urging the Supreme Court to distinguish between serious and minor defects and adopt the standards of "actual harm" and "proportionality".