Background: The paper highlights some current issues of the legislation of Ukraine in the field of administration of the prosecution system in Ukraine through the lens of reflection on European integration trends. Special attention is drawn to the ambiguity of conceptual understanding in the legislative regulation of the legal status of such a management body in this area as the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine, the certainty of legal category ‘Judicial Governance’ and the Possibility of Extrapolating this Model to the prosecution system, the prospects for transformation of the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine and the introduction of the institute of prosecutorial governance. This study was carried out to answer the following questions: what is the essence of the European integration vision regarding the institutional shortcomings of the administration of the Public Prosecutor's Office system under the legislation of Ukraine, outlined in relevant documents? What is the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine as one of the bodies of the administration of the prosecution system in Ukraine under Ukrainian law? Is the legislatively defined status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine consistent with its staffing and the nature of its powers? What were the prerequisites for the legislative regulation of the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine as a body of prosecutorial self-governance, despite the conceptual inconsistency of the staffing and some powers of this body with the concept of ‘prosecutorial self-governance’? Is the legislatively defined status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine consistent with the vision of European experts, as set out in the relevant documents on the EU's enlargement policy towards Ukraine? Given the constitutionally defined trend toward approximating prosecution to the judiciary, is there any unity in legislative approaches to regulating the organisation and functioning of governance and self-governance bodies in adjacent legal institutions, including the judiciary? Is it advisable to use the experience of administrating the judiciary system in Ukraine concerning the organisation and functioning of judicial governance and self-government bodies, and extrapolate it to the prosecution system? What are the prospects and models for the possible introduction of the institution of prosecutorial governance as one of the ways to transform the institutional status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine? The article aims to provide a conceptual justification for legislative approaches to transforming the institutional status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine as one of the management bodies of the prosecution system, to identify shortcomings in legislation that necessitate such a transformation, and to offer proposals for ways to achieve this transformation, considering international standards and European integration trends. Methods. To achieve the research purpose, general and unique scientific research methods were applied. The paper is underpinned by the fundamental literature sources, including scientific papers, legislative acts, and international conventions. To meet the nature of the problem raised in the paper, research works, information, analytical reports from respective reputable organisations were used. The study is based on the following methods: dialectical, systemic, and structural analysis, comparative legal analysis, abstraction, forecasting and modelling, analysis, synthesis, and generalisation. The dialectical method and systemic and structural analysis were used to identify general patterns in the formation and development of the justice system and to determine the role of the prosecution within this system in general, and the prosecution system administration bodies in particular. This revealed a trend toward aligning the prosecutor's office closer with the judiciary as an adjacent legal institution that assists courts in administering justice. It also enabled the testing of the hypothesis and substantiation of the conclusion that it is appropriate to approximate the legal status of prosecution administration bodies to that of bodies with a similar legal nature within the judiciary. This contributed to distinguishing the factors influencing changes in the structural elements of the legal regulation mechanism governing relations in this sphere and to identifying directions for further development, particularly in light of the European integration aspirations of Ukraine and the resulting reforms concerning the legal status of prosecution system administration bodies as a prerequisite for progress toward European integration. The comparative legal analysis method and the method of interpreting legal norms were employed to examine the positions of European experts regarding institutional shortcomings in the administration of the prosecution system under Ukrainian legislation, as well as legislative approaches to regulating the legal status of prosecutorial self-governance bodies and judicial governance bodies. This made it possible to summarise the identified shortcomings in the administration of the prosecution system under Ukrainian law and to substantiate conclusions about the differing legislative approaches to regulating the legal status of institutions of professional governance and self-governance in the justice system in Ukraine that are similar in their legal nature concerning judges and prosecutors. It also highlighted the need for conceptual substantiation and legal certainty in efforts to establish a uniform conceptual framework for defining the mission, competence, and procedures for forming bodies of professional governance and self-governance within the justice system. The methods of abstraction, forecasting, and modeling were employed to explore ways of addressing ambiguities in the conceptual understanding of the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine, which enabled the substantiation of directions for transforming its legal status either by defining its mixed legal nature, or by aligning the procedure for forming its composition and powers with the legislatively established concept of ‘prosecutorial self-governance’ and the creating a separate Prosecutorial Council, as well as proposing a model for such a Council. The methods of analysis, synthesis, and generalisation were applied to develop conceptual proposals for harmonising approaches to the formation of bodies within the prosecution system and the judiciary that are similar in their legal nature, with due regard to international standards and European integration trends in the development of the justice system in Ukraine, and contributed to the well-grounded substantiation of the general conclusions of the study. Results and Conclusions: it has been established that the European integration perspective on institutional shortcomings in the administration of the prosecution system under Ukrainian legislation is primarily focused on democratic bodies responsible for administering this system, as well as on the bodies administering the judiciary, given that they are vested with legislative powers to exert administrative influence over the prosecution system. It has been argued that one of the pressing issues in the functioning of the prosecution system’s administration bodies in Ukraine is an ambiguous conceptual understanding of the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine, which arises from the particularities of implementing European standards for the organisation and functioning of prosecution system administration bodies into national legislation. Attention has been drawn to the particularities of legislative regulation of the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine, which indicates that this body is, in practice, endowed with two legal statuses: that of a body of prosecutorial self-governance and that of a body of governance. It has been proved that such legislative regulation does not contribute to the effective protection of prosecutors' independence from external and internal pressures and undermines the potential of this body in the professional community. A need to regulate and conceptually define the category of ‘judicial governance’ for the justice system as a whole, and for its possible extrapolation to the prosecution system in particular, has been substantiated. The existence of different legislative approaches to regulating the legal status of institutions of professional governance and self-governance in the justice system in Ukraine, which are similar in their nature concerning judges and prosecutors, has been noted. It has been substantiated that there is a need for stronger justification and greater legal certainty in the effort to create a single conceptual framework for defining the mission, competence, and procedures for forming such bodies of administration within the justice system. The prospects for transforming the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine have been established, specifically, through harmonising the methods of forming its composition and powers with the legislatively enshrined definition of ‘prosecutorial self-governance’ and creating a separate Prosecutorial Council within the institution of prosecutorial governance.
Stefanchuk et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: