The Model of Prosecutorial Self-Governance in Ukraine and the Baltic Countries: A Comparative Aspect

Background: New legislation in Ukraine has introduced a significant change in the function of the prosecutor’s office by establishing bodies of prosecutorial self-governance. Their implementation stems from the change in the constitutional status of the prosecutor's office and the need to strengthen the independence of prosecutors while minimising external political and internal systemic influence on their work. Such reforms align with a pan-European tendency, which was formed as a result of the modernisation of approaches to the perception of the prosecutor's office. The independence of the judiciary and the effectiveness of the administration of justice depends on the independent activity of such body as the prosecutor's office. This necessitates the formation and development of the principle of political neutrality, which should form the basis of the organisation and activity of the prosecutor's office in a state governed by the rule of law. Orientation to international standards and best practices allows us to hypothesise about the progressiveness of the Ukrainian model of prosecutorial self-governance. This hypothesis can be tested through a comparative analysis with other countries. We have chosen the Baltic countries for comparison as they are connected with Ukraine by a common Soviet past; however, they decided on the European course of their development much faster. The article offers an overview of models of prosecutorial self-governance in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Ukraine, outlining the structure and competence of their bodies. Based on a comparative analysis of Ukraine’s example, the researchers have identified the main directions for strengthening the institutional capacity of prosecutorial self-governance bodies. Methods: In conducting the scientific work, the authors employed several special legal methods, which allowed them to realise both the collection and generalisation of factual data, as well as to carry out a multi-level comparison of selected research objects at the proper level. The study relied on, in particular, formal-legal, logical-legal, historical-legal and comparativelegal methods of scientific learning. Results and Conclusions: It has been concluded that the introduction of prosecutorial selfgovernance in the states is a necessary step in the direction of strengthening the independence of prosecutors as a component of effective justice. This makes it possible to minimise external political and internal systemic influence on personnel processes in the prosecutor's office system, contributes to ensuring its political neutrality, as well as solves issues of financial, material, technical, and other provisions for prosecutors. In this sense, the Ukrainian model of prosecutorial self-governance is quite progressive, although it is not without disadvantages. In particular, the dispersion of personnel powers among different subjects makes prosecutors vulnerable in career advancement, specifically regarding clarity in the demarcation of their competence. This focuses on further developing prosecutorial self-governance, strengthening its institutional capacity.