The basis for separating administrative violations from crimes in the laws of Iraq, Egypt, and Iran

Abstract

The paramount importance of this research lies in elucidating the governing legal and legitimate standards that regulate the crucial distinction between administrative violations and criminal offenses, thereby safeguarding the public service system. The core research problem stems from the absence of a decisive and unified legislative standard for differentiating between disciplinary offenses and criminal crimes in the legal systems of Iraq, Egypt, and Iran. This leads to legislative overlap and jurisdictional conflicts, undermining the principle of legality of crimes and punishments and inevitably resulting in conflicting and duplicated disciplinary and criminal penalties, thus infringing upon employee rights. To address this complex issue, the researcher undertakes a foundational study and an in-depth comparative analysis of existing legislation, established jurisprudential opinions, and judicial applications in the three countries. This analysis aims to precisely identify points of convergence and divergence and resolve legislative ambiguities. The research plan employs a comparative analytical approach that explores the fundamental basis for differentiation, considering factors such as the nature of the protected interest, the competent administrative and judicial authority, and the type of penalty imposed. The ultimate goal is to propose a legislative framework and a robust legal model that clearly separates the two tracks and prevents administrative and judicial confusion. The study reached several vital conclusions, most notably the comparative legal framework that balances material and personal standards, and the urgent need for Iraqi legislation to disentangle procedural matters from the criminal justice system through clear legal mechanisms. In conclusion, the researcher highlights the practical importance of this topic in ensuring the stability of the legal status of public employees, preventing double punishment, and providing a secure legal environment that enhances the efficiency of oversight and judicial bodies.