Serhii Ionushas
People’s Deputy of Ukraine
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0217-0682
Anotation. In the light of permanent constitutional and judicial reforms in Ukraine, the issue of the constitutional
institution of the prosecutor’s office remains relevant. In this regard, given the common political and legal past, it may
be useful to study the experience of reforming state and legal institutions, in particular, the institution of the prosecutor’s
office in the countries of the former Soviet Union. The purpose of the article is to analyze the trends of modernization
of the prosecutor’s office in the member states of the former USSR in the context of the transformation of their forms
of government and systems of separation of state power. It is noted that today in most of these countries the search for
the optimal model of the prosecutor’s office is not complete. Since gaining independence, the Baltic States have been
more stable in modernizing the legal status of the prosecutor’s office and moving closer to European standards. In Estonia
and Latvia (parliamentary republics), the prosecutor’s office is essentially outside the constitutional institution, while in
Lithuania (mixed form of government) the prosecutor’s office has a clearer place in the constitutional field. It is noted
that the reform of the prosecutor’s office in most countries is based on different methodological guidelines. In Russia
and Belarus, the model of a “strong” Soviet-style general supervisory prosecutor’s office has been preserved. Similar
models of the prosecutor’s office operate in the republics – Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan (presidential
systems of government of the post-Soviet type). Their characteristic features are: strict centralization and subordination to
the presidential power of the organizational structure of the prosecutor’s office and, mainly, the general supervisory type.
Changes in the constitutional and legal status of the prosecutor’s office in Moldova, Armenia, and Georgia indicate that
they are significantly closer to the European standards of the prosecutor’s office and the democratization of their political
and legal systems. The conclusions state that from the point of view of the functions performed by the prosecutor’s office,
defined in the constitutions and special laws in the territory of the former USSR, as a general rule, the prosecutor’s office
implements the function of criminal prosecution. The function of general supervision is exercised by the prosecutor’s
office in centralized presidential countries, Belarus, Russia, Central Asian republics – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. Modernization of the institution of the prosecutor’s office in the former USSR is not only
based on the transformation of the entire state organization, but, to a large extent, on the basis of the appropriate level
of legal culture, political, ethno-social, moral and others, traditions and tasks set by society at the appropriate stage
of its development. The transformation of the model of the prosecutor’s office as a constitutional institution generally
depends on the need to ensure a system of separation of powers and checks and balances. The model of the institute
of the prosecutor’s office in the parliamentary republics (Baltic countries – Estonia, Latvia) can be described as flexible, as
in such countries there is no need to design and define the functions of this body in constitutional acts. Such bodies exercise
their competence in cooperation with the bodies of all branches of government. A characteristic feature of the prosecutor’s
office in countries with presidential systems of the post-Soviet type (Russia, Belarus, Central Asian republics) is: strict
centralization and subordination to the presidential power of the organizational structure and above all supervisory
type, as well as clearly recognized constitutional status. In general, in mixed systems of government, the institution
of the prosecutor’s office is usually objectified in constitutional acts, so the constitutional status of the prosecutor’s office
serves as a kind of guarantee of balance between the bodies of all branches of government.
Keywords: In the light of permanent constitutional and judicial reforms in Ukraine, the issue of the constitutional
institution of the prosecutor’s office remains relevant. In this regard, given the common political and legal past, it may
be useful to study the experience of reforming state and legal institutions, in particular, the institution of the prosecutor’s
office in the countries of the former Soviet Union. The purpose of the article is to analyze the trends of modernization
of the prosecutor’s office in the member states of the former USSR in the context of the transformation of their forms
of government and systems of separation of state power. It is noted that today in most of these countries the search for
the optimal model of the prosecutor’s office is not complete. Since gaining independence, the Baltic States have been
more stable in modernizing the legal status of the prosecutor’s office and moving closer to European standards. In Estonia
and Latvia (parliamentary republics), the prosecutor’s office is essentially outside the constitutional institution, while in
Lithuania (mixed form of government) the prosecutor’s office has a clearer place in the constitutional field. It is noted
that the reform of the prosecutor’s office in most countries is based on different methodological guidelines. In Russia
and Belarus, the model of a “strong” Soviet-style general supervisory prosecutor’s office has been preserved. Similar
models of the prosecutor’s office operate in the republics – Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan (presidential
systems of government of the post-Soviet type). Their characteristic features are: strict centralization and subordination to
the presidential power of the organizational structure of the prosecutor’s office and, mainly, the general supervisory type.
Changes in the constitutional and legal status of the prosecutor’s office in Moldova, Armenia, and Georgia indicate that
they are significantly closer to the European standards of the prosecutor’s office and the democratization of their political
and legal systems. The conclusions state that from the point of view of the functions performed by the prosecutor’s office,
defined in the constitutions and special laws in the territory of the former USSR, as a general rule, the prosecutor’s office
implements the function of criminal prosecution. The function of general supervision is exercised by the prosecutor’s
office in centralized presidential countries, Belarus, Russia, Central Asian republics – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. Modernization of the institution of the prosecutor’s office in the former USSR is not only
based on the transformation of the entire state organization, but, to a large extent, on the basis of the appropriate level
of legal culture, political, ethno-social, moral and others, traditions and tasks set by society at the appropriate stage
of its development. The transformation of the model of the prosecutor’s office as a constitutional institution generally
depends on the need to ensure a system of separation of powers and checks and balances. The model of the institute
of the prosecutor’s office in the parliamentary republics (Baltic countries – Estonia, Latvia) can be described as flexible, as
in such countries there is no need to design and define the functions of this body in constitutional acts. Such bodies exercise
their competence in cooperation with the bodies of all branches of government. A characteristic feature of the prosecutor’s
office in countries with presidential systems of the post-Soviet type (Russia, Belarus, Central Asian republics) is: strict
centralization and subordination to the presidential power of the organizational structure and above all supervisory
type, as well as clearly recognized constitutional status. In general, in mixed systems of government, the institution
of the prosecutor’s office is usually objectified in constitutional acts, so the constitutional status of the prosecutor’s office
serves as a kind of guarantee of balance between the bodies of all branches of government.