On participation of a prosecutor in administrative judicial proceedings as an interested party

Traditionally, the participation of a prosecutor in administrative proceedings is characterized by three forms: filing an administrative statement of claim with the court, joining the proceedings to deliver an opinion, and participating in a case as an administrative defendant. At the same time, judicial practice has recorded numerous instances in which prosecutors participating in the consideration of administrative cases by the courts possess the procedural status of interested parties. The article analyzes the nature of the prosecutor’s legal interest in the outcome of an administrative case depending on the form of his or her participation in the proceedings. It examines certain situations in which the rights and obligations of prosecutorial authorities may be affected by the resolution of an administrative case, as well as situations in which the prosecutor’s participation in an administrative case as an interested party cannot be considered justified. The research is based on a combination of general scientific and specialized legal methods of cognition. The author employs a systemic interpretation of legislation on administrative proceedings and summarizes judicial and prosecutorial practice. The article concludes that a prosecutor who has the procedural status of an interested party is characterized by a substantive legal interest in the outcome of the case. It is noted that it is expedient to involve a prosecutor as an interested party in administrative cases concerning: the award of compensation for violation of the right to legal proceedings within a reasonable time or the right to enforcement of a judicial act within a reasonable time, the contestation of decisions, actions (inaction) of the Federal Bailiff Service or its officials in enforcement proceedings initiated on the basis of writs of execution issued in cases (claims, applications, administrative statements of claim) brought by prosecutors in defense of public interests, the contestation of decisions, actions (inaction) of public authorities, local self-government bodies, other agencies or organizations vested with certain state or other public powers, as well as officials, state and municipal employees, where such actions are based on prosecutorial demands, and the contestation of decisions, actions (inaction) of lower-level prosecutors. The article substantiates the conclusion that it is inadmissible to substitute the prosecutor’s participation in the proceedings for the purpose of delivering an opinion, or the summoning of a prosecutorial official as a witness, with his or her participation in the case as an interested party.