Правовое поле

Prosecutor as a party of constitutional and legal dispute: offers for improvement of the current legislation

Received: 15.01.2017 Published: 15.01.2017

DOI: 10.22394/1818-4049-2017-78-1-120-123

Full text

Abstract

In the disputes resolved by the courts of law and the arbi-tration courts, the prosecutor over the general rule, speaks out in defense of public interests whereas in the constitutional and legal disputes resolved by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, opposite works for the benefit of specific citizens and their associations, protecting their violated constitutional rights and freedoms that, according to the author of this article, not quite answers his mission and the purpose enshrined in the Fed-eral law "About Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation". The European commission for democracy through law (Venice commission) doesn't support the legislation of those countries which grant to the prosecutor's office the right to protect someone's personal interests in the constitutional court, empha-sizing that the Attorney-General can easily appear in a situation when personal and public interests are in a conflict. Proceeding from the international acts and foreign experience the sugges-tions for improvement of the Russian legislation regulating the status of the prosecutor as the parties of a constitutional and le-gal dispute are formulated in the article.

Keywords

How to cite

Для цитирования:

Никитина А. Прокурор как сторона конституционно-правового спо-ра: предложения по совершенствованию действующего законодательства // Власть и управление на Востоке России. 2017. Т. 10, № 1. https://doi.org/10.22394/1818-4049-2017-78-1-120-123

For citation:

Никитина А. Prosecutor as a party of constitutional and legal dispute: offers for improvement of the current legislation // Power and Administration in the East of Russia. 2017. Vol. 10, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.22394/1818-4049-2017-78-1-120-123

How to Cite

Никитина А. Prosecutor as a party of constitutional and legal dispute: offers for improvement of the current legislation // Power and Administration in the East of Russia. 2017. Vol. 10, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.22394/1818-4049-2017-78-1-120-123

References

  1. Бердюгина Ю.М. Субъекты конституционного судопроизводства: дисс. … канд. юрид. нау. Екатеринбург, 2011. 233 с.
  2. Витрук Н.В. Право, демократия и личность в конституционном измерении (история, доктрина и практика). Избранные труды (1991 – 2012 гг.). М.: Норма, 2012. 688 с.
  3. Митюков М.А. Очерки конституционного правосудия (сравнительно-правовое исследование законодательства и судебной практики). Томск: Изд-во Томского ун-та, 1999. 405 с.
  4. Эбзеев, Б.С. Конституция. Правовое государство. Конституционный Суд. М.: Закон и право, ЮНИТИ, 1996. 349 с.
  5. По делу о проверке конституционности положений статей 115 и 231 ГПК РСФСР, статей 26, 251 и 253 ГПК Российской Федерации, статей 1, 21 и 22 Федерального закона «О прокуратуре Российской Федерации» в связи с запросами Государственного Собрания – Курултая Республики Башкортостан, Государственного совета Республики Татарстан и Верховного суда Республики Татарстан: Постановление Конституционного суда РФ от 18 июля 2003 г. № 13-П // Собрание законодательства РФ. 2003. № 30. Ст. 3101.
  6. CDL-AD(2012)009 Opinion on Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court of Hungary, paragraph 29 // Compilation of Venice commission opinions, reports and studies on constitutional justice: European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice commission). 1 July 2015. Strasbourg. 65 p.