Functional Status of Prosecutor as a Subject of Administrative Proceedings

Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research


Release:

2016, Vol. 2. №4

Title: 
Functional Status of Prosecutor as a Subject of Administrative Proceedings


About the authors:

Olga A. Zagvyazinskaya, Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, Institute of State and Law, Tyumen State University; zagvyazinskaya@yandex.ru

Marina A. Astakhova, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Civil-Legal Disciplines, Moscow Institute of the State Management and Law (Tyumen Branch); ast-marina@yandex.ru

Abstract:

The article examines general issues of the functional status of the public prosecutor as a subject of the administrative proceedings. The status is regulated by the standards of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, which has come to force recently. To identify the role and place of the public prosecutor in the administrative justice system, the authors analyze the provisions of the existing substantive and procedural legislation, courts practice, and legal doctrine. The conducted scientific-analytical research allowed to determine the functional role of the prosecutor as a participant in the process (administrative plaintiff, the person giving the opinion on the case, administrative defendant), to establish the list and the content of the formal requirements in respect of the implementation of the order of judicial and administrative functions of the prosecutor. The result of the research is the positioning of the public prosecutor as a multifunctional administrative proceedings subject with a formal defined status. The novelty of the study is that it is one of the few works devoted to the legal status of the prosecutor involved in the administrative proceedings.

References:

  1. Baglai M. V. 1998. Konstitucionnoe pravo Rossiyskoy Federacii [Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation]. Moscow: NORMA-INFRA-M.
  2. Bespalov Yu. F. 2016. Kommentariy k Kodeksu administrativnogo sudoproizvodstva Rossiyskoy Federacii (postateynyy nauchno-prakticheskiy) [Commentary on the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation (itemized scientific and practical)]. Moscow: Prospekt.
  3. Nasonov Yu. G., Vyskub V. S. 2015. “O nedostatkah pravovogo regulirovaniya uchastiya prokurora v administrativnom sudoproizvodstve” [On the Shortcomings of Legal Regulation of the Public Prosecutor’s Participation in the Administrative Proceedings]. Vestnik Akademii Generalnoy prokuratury Rossiyskoy Federacii, no 5, pp. 60-66.
  4. Nikolaeva L. A., Solovyova A. K. 2004. Administrativnaya yusticiya i administrativnoe sudoproizvodstvo: zarubezhnyy opyt i rossiyskie tradicii [Administrative Justice and Administrative Proceedings: International Experience and Russian Traditions]. St. Petersburg: Yuridicheskiy centr Press.
  5. Panova I. V. 2013. “Administrativnoe sudoproizvodstvo ili administrativnyy sud?” [Administrative Proceedings or Administrative Court?]. Administrativnoe pravo i process, no 5, pp. 20-27.
  6. Pavlovskaya M. V. 2016. “Osobennosti uchastiya prokurora v administrativnom sudoproizvodstve” [Features of the Prosecutor’s Participation in the Administrative Proceedings]. Zakonnost, no 1, pp. 3-7.
  7. Rabko T. A. 2000. “Pravotvorchestvo zakonodatelnyh organov subektov Federacii: vozmozhen li preventivnyy nadzor prokuratury” [Lawmaking of Legislative Authorities of the Administrative Regions of the Russian Federation: Is Preventive Supervision of the Prosecutor’s Office Possible?]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava [Journal of Russian Law]. no 9, pp. 51-55.
  8. Shalumov M. S. 2002. Problemy funkcionirovaniya rossiyskoy prokuratury v usloviyah formirovaniya demokraticheskogo pravovogo gosudarstva [Problems of functioning of the Russian Prosecutor’s Office in the formation of democratic constitutional state]. Doctoral Thesis. Yekaterinburg.
  9. The Russian Federation Constitutional Court Order of 18 December 2007 no 831-O-O “Ob otkaze v prinyatii k rassmotreniyu zhaloby grazhdanina Petrova Vladimira Vladimirovicha na narushenie ego konstitucionnyh prav chastyu tretey stati 45, chastyu pervoy stati 344, chastyu vtoroy stati 347, statey 357, chastyu vtoroy stati 366 i statey 387 Grazhdanskogo processualnogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federacii” [On the Refusal to Accept for Consideration the Complaint of the Citizen Vladimir Petrov about the Violation of His Constitutional Rights by Part Three of Article 45, Part One of Article 344, Paragraph Two of Article 347, Article 357, Second Part of Article 366 and Article 387 of the Civil Procedure Code].
  10. The Russian Federation Constitutional Court Order of 28 May 2009 no 589-O-O “Ob otkaze v prinyatii k rassmotreniyu zhaloby grazhdanina Kvotchenko Anatoliya Leontevicha na narushenie ego konstitucionnyh prav polozheniyami statey 45 i 112 Grazhdanskogo processualnogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federacii” [On the Refusal to Accept for Consideration the Complaint of the Citizen Kvotchenko Anatoly Leontyevich about the Violation of His Constitutional Rights in Articles 45 and 112 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation].
  11. The Russian Federation General Prosecutor Letter of 27 January 2003 no 8-15-2003 “O nekotoryh voprosah uchastiya prokurora v grazhdanskom processe, svyazannyh s prinyatiem i vvedeniem v deystvie Grazhdanskogo processualnogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii” [On Some Issues of Participation of the Prosecutor in Civil Proceedings Relating to the Adoption and Entry into Force of the Civil Procedure Code]. 
  12. The Supreme Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation Letter no S1-7/up-1270 and the Russian Federation General Prosecutor no 8-2b-03 of 20 November 2003 “Ob uchastii prokurora v arbitrazhnom processe” [On the Participation of the Prosecutor in the Proceedings].
  13. Vinokurov A. Yu. 2016. “O nekotoryh voprosah uchastiya prokurora v administrativnom sudoproizvodstve” [On Some Issues of the Prosecutor’s Participation in the Administrative Proceedings]. Administrativnoe i municipalnoe pravo, no 2, pp. 178-182. DOI: 10.7256/1999-2807.2016.2.17373