Библиографическое описание:ПРОКУРОР В СУДЕ ПЕРВОЙ ИНСТАНЦИИ: ПРОЦЕССУАЛЬНО-ЗНАЧИМАЯ ФИГУРА В УГОЛОВНОМ ПРОЦЕССЕ ИЛИ АТРИБУТ СОСТЯЗАТЕЛЬНОСТИ? : научное издание / А. Д. Назаров, А. С. Шагинян. - [Б. м. : б. и.], 2019. - Текст : непосредственный // Правовые проблемы укрепления российской государственности = Legal Issues of Strengthening Russian Statehood : Сборник статей / Научные редакторы: О.И. Андреева, Т.В. Трубникова. Отв. секретарь И.В. Чаднова. - Томск : Национальный исследовательский Томский государственный университет, 2019. - Часть 83. - С. 137-145. - ISBN 9785946216722, DOI 10.17223/9785946218566/19. Перевод заглавия: The Prosecutor in the Court of First Instance: A Party Significant in the Criminal Procedure or an Attribute of the Adversarial system?
Аннотация:В статье рассматривается сложившаяся практика участия прокуроров в качестве государственных обвинителей в состязательном производстве по уголовным делам в суде первой инстанции и анализируются подходы законодателя, Генеральной прокуратуры РФ, позиции ученых-правоведов в контексте процессуальной значимости поддержания прокурором государственного обвинения в суде. Авторы предлагают пути совершенствования деятельности прокуроров в суде первой инстанции при рассмотрении уголовных дел.
In the article, the authors consider the theoretical and practical issues of the prosecutor's participation in the court of first instance as a public prosecution party in criminal cases. The authors emphasize the prevailing practice of prosecutors' participation in the capacity of public prosecutors in adversarial proceedings in the court of first instance in each criminal case. The authors express and justify their proposal to return the approach to prosecutors' participation in the examination of criminal cases on the merits. This approach was used in the criminal procedure in the Soviet period of Russia's history. During this period, public prosecution was not handled in each criminal case, but only in cases that were of particular complexity, of special social significance. With this approach - whether or not the prosecutor should participate in the trial - the decision was either made by the prosecutor himself, or the court insisted on the prosecutor's participation in the trial. The authors analyze the modern approaches of the legislator and the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, the position of legal scholars in the context of the procedural significance of the prosecutor's participation in public prosecution in court. The authors propose ways to improve prosecutors' activities in courts of first instance hearing criminal cases, e.g., to have the same person as a prosecutor supervisingover the preliminary investigation of criminal cases and as a public prosecution party in the same criminal case in the court of first instance. The authors propose various forms of interaction between entities conducting criminal proceedings, e.g., the actual conduct of operative meetings (a “legal forum”) when hearing a criminal case in court with the participation of (1) the prosecutor who supervised the preliminary investigation, inquiry and operative-investigative activities in the case under consideration, (2) the investigator who carried out the preliminary investigation in the case, and (3) the prosecutor who is a public prosecution party in the case. The quality of public prosecution in court would increase in Russia if, like, for example, in Germany, prosecutors formulated the indictment at the completion of the preliminary investigation and they would come to court to support the indictment they had drawn up. Many of the innovations the authors of the article propose can now be implemented through the publication of relevant guiding orders and instructions of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation rather than through changes in legislative acts.
