With adoption of Law of Ukraine of “Prosecutor’s Office” prosecutors’ activities in proceeding in civil cases transformed from supervision the civil cases judgement through prosecutor’s participation in proceeding to representation of the interests of citizens or the state.
In contrast to other subjects who have a right of appeal, prosecutor’s interest has procedural disposition as a purpose of his participation in case doesn’t come to getting of material weals by virtue of a court decision [1, 97].
In accordance with p. 2 art. 121 of Ukraine Constitution one of the functions of prosecutor’s office of Ukraine is representation of the interests of citizens or the state in court in cases provided by the law. In accordance with the Constitutional Court’s Decision of 8 of April 1999, these are the legal relationships, in which prosecutor realizing the lined by Ukraine Constitution and laws powers, makes judicial process on purpose to protect the interests of the indicated subjects [2, 39].
One of the forms of representing of the interests of a citizen or the state in court is introduction of appeal or cassational referring or application of their review according to newly-discovered circumstances [3, 9-10; 4, 354].
In accordance with p. 2 art. 45 of Code of civil procedure of Ukraine (COCP) the right of introduction of appeal, cassational complaint is given to prosecutor and prosecutor’s assistant within the limits of their competence, independent of their participation in legal investigation in the court of first instance. Prosecutor’s assistants, prosecutors of governances and departments have a power to appeal, cassational complaints only in the cases, in which they participated. [5, 468 – 469].
As K. Gusarov essentially points out, a right of appeal against court decision should be given to a prosecutor not as to officer of body, which in accordance with the current legislation contributes to adherence of legality in courts, but exceptionally as to subject of civil procedural law [6, 93]. The scientists’ opinion about prosecutor always appears in court as supervision body of execution of laws, is not connected with unilateral interests anybody from participants of process and called for taking measures till removal of any violation of the law, whoever does it [7, 82], takes place only in within the limits of trial procedure. In civil procedure, according to the constitutional principle of equality of all participants of trial procedure to law and court, it’s necessary to provide the equality of prosecutor and other subjects of right of appeal.
However, not all scientists keep such point of view. So, J. Levina points out, that prosecutor doesn’t participate in investigation of cases by the courts as a governmental agent and is a guarantor of legality in performance of legal proceedings [8, 37]. Determining the fact of prosecutor’s being a having equal rights party of procedure, she points out, that at the same time he doesn’t cease being a representative of the body, which realizes the supervision of keeping the Constitution and execution of current legislation of Ukraine [8, 38]. According to her opinion, prosecutor’s juridical interest to procedure always has state character [8, 38].
Supporters of limitation of prosecutor’s commissions in civil procedure are in major, that is admitted even by their opponents. Entering into polemics with M. Borodin and K. Gusarov M. Rudenko and T. Dunas point out, that said scientists forget about two important circumstances. Representing interests of citizens and state in court, prosecutor accomplish essentially new function, fixed in Constitution of Ukraine, which substantially differents from representation by the law and by the order. The principle of restrain and counterbalance in relations of court’s and prosecutor’s power must function in both straights. On one side, in determined by the law cases, courts must control the legality of prosecutor’s decisions and acts, and on the other side, as V. Dolegan correctly points out, by prosecutors must be reserved the right of official critic of decisions and acts of judiciary, which must be responded by the appropriate legal instances in established order and by the fixed time [9, 158].
On modern conditions taking in consideration, that socially unprotected citizens are unable to defence their rights themselves through appeal against court decisions (in connection with material situation are not able to resort to lawyer service, right an appeal themselves, which would be up to the norms of the CoCP, pay duty etc.), prosecutor’s office helps them, applying in the presence of evidences with appeals to the court [9, 159].
Speaking about system of restrains and counterbalances, which is characteristic to democratic legal system, it should be pointed out, that it’s not inherent to the latter the existence of supervision the court by the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor’s state interest can exist in sphear of public but not private legal relationship. As for assistance for socially unprotected citizens, that in this tendency free legal assistance should be developed, than overload the prosecutor’s office bodies with extra amount of work to be done.
Yet before adoption of the current CoCP in literature was expressed the opinion, that only prosecutor, who participated in case investigation, should have a right of appeal in civil proceedings. In particular, it was mentioned, that if the right of introduction of appeal is consolidated by the prosecutor, who didn’t participate in conduct of the case (side by side with those, who participated in the case), it will lead to breaking the principle of dispositivness of civil procedure law, as far as prosecutor’s will of appeal against the court act can different from the materially and procedurally interested people’s will about this procedure (parties, third parties). It is difficult not to admit this, as far as prosecutor in civil proceedings must not change a party in case of defence of it’s broken interests.
Summing up the aforesaid, we point out, that reformation of civil proceedings in context of narrowing of prosecutor’s responsibilities in civil procedure and futher equalizing of its legal status with other participants of the procedure should be continued. Statute of prosecutor’s representation in any stage of civil process (by the way which wasn’t even in Code of civil procedure of 1963) requires extra reinterpretation.
1. Гусаров К.В. Суб’єкти права апеляційного оскарження у цивільному процесі // Проблеми законності. Вип. 65: Респ. між від. наук. збірн. – Х.: НЮАУ, 2003. – с.94-101.
2. Рішення Конституційного суду від 8 квітня 1999 р. № 3-рп/99 // Офіційний вісник України – 1999. - №15. – с. 35.
3. Наказ Генеральної прокуратури України від 29.11.2006 року № 6гн Про організацію представництва прокурором в суді інтересів громадянина або держави та їх захисту при виконанні судових рішень // Бюлетень законодавства і юридичної практики. – 2008. - № 10. – с. 351-357.
4. Косюта М. Способи правового регулювання представницької функції прокуратури України // Вісник прокуратури. – 2007. – № 4(70). – с. 9-13.
5. Балюк М.І., Луспеник Д.Д. Практика застосування цивільного процесуального кодексу України (цивільний процес у питаннях і відповідях). Коментарі, рекомендації, пропозиції. Серія „Судова практика”. – Х.: Харків юридичний, 2008. – 708 с.
6. Гусаров К.В. Право прокурора на оскарження судових рішень в апеляційному порядку // Прокуратура. Людина. Держава. – 2004. – №2(32). – с. 92-95.
7. Копетюк М., Книш О. Правові засади участі прокурора в апеляційному провадженні // Юридична Україна. – 2005. – №3. – с. 82-87.
8. Левіна Ю. Процесуальний статус прокурора в цивільному судочинстві на сучасному етапі // Прокуратура. Людина. Держава. – 2005. – №4(46). – с. 34-39.
9. Дунас Т. О., Руденко М.В. Прокурор у цивільному процесі України: Сутність, завдання, повноваження: навч. і наук.-практ. посіб. для студ. юрид. вищ. навч. закл. / За наук ред. д.ю.н., проф. М.В. Руденко. – Х.: Харків юридичний, 2006. – 340 с.
Знайшли помилку? Виділіть помилковий текст і натисніть Ctrl + Enter