The subject of the research is the set of legal norms enshrined in part 3 of article 131 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and their application in judicial practice when considering claims made by the prosecutor in defense of public interests. Within the framework of the work, a detailed analysis is conducted of the substantive and procedural aspects of the specified norm, including the duty of the prosecutor to specify the defended interest, indicate the violated right, and the legally prescribed means of its protection. Special attention is paid to investigating doctrinal approaches to understanding the categories of "public interest" and "subjective right," as well as their relation in the context of civil proceedings. The research also covers the law enforcement practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (2022–2025), within which typical procedural violations committed by prosecutors in exercising their powers are identified and classified, and the legal consequences of non-compliance with the requirements of procedural certainty are analyzed. A comprehensive methodological approach was employed by the authors, including the use of both general scientific methods of cognition (dialectical, methods of analysis and synthesis, systemic-structural) and specialized scientific (legal) methods (formal-legal, comparative-legal, historical-legal, and the method of legal modeling). The article argues that the systemic difficulties in applying part 3 of article 131 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in this category of cases are due to the need for the procedural transformation of public interest into the construct of subjective right. Based on the analysis of extensive judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the authors identify and classify typical procedural violations committed by prosecutors: lack of specification of the violated right, inconsistency of the means of protection with article 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, incompleteness of factual circumstances, and defects leading to the unenforceability of judicial acts. The work proposes a set of measures aimed at overcoming the identified contradictions, including the development of judicial interpretation for a broader understanding of "violated right" in publicly significant areas, flexible application of means of protection (in particular, imposing phased obligations), as well as the need to ensure the detailing of claims to guarantee the enforceability of judicial decisions. As a promising direction, the discussion on the feasibility of considering claims for the enforcement of public duties within the framework of administrative rather than civil proceedings is highlighted, which would allow for avoiding the artificial "privatization" of public interest.
Kravtsov et al. (Sun,) studied this question.