Models of the Organization of the Prosecutor’s Office in Foreign Countries: on the Issue of the Independence of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Discretion of the Prosecutor (Comparative Legal Aspect)
https://doi.org/10.24412/1998-5533-2025-4-157-161
Abstract
The relevance of the article is determined by the dynamic development of the Prosecutor’s Office and the need to find legal methods for its regulation, bearing in mind that the competence of the Prosecutor’s Office in the field of criminal proceedings is one of the most important issues in this field nowadays.
The purpose of this study is to highlight the distinctive features of the status of the Prosecutor from the comparative point of view, mainly based on the example of the Prosecutor’s Offices in Germany and France.
The scientific relevance of this study consists in clarifying the distinctive features of the status of the Prosecutor in France and Germany based on foreign research materials and a comparative legal approach. The results of this scientific research can be used to enrich the scientific research base in the field of criminal procedure and the law enforcement bodies and for a critical assessment of the status of the Prosecutor in the Russian Federation.
In the course of this study, the authors concluded that differences in the scope of the Prosecutor’s powers in certain countries are characterized, in particular, by his position in the structure of public bodies and the extent of discretion granted to the Prosecutor by legislation in initiating criminal proceedings or applying alternatives to criminal prosecution at the stage of preliminary investigation.
About the Authors
I. I. Belozerova
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
R. A. Rastopshin
Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the city of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Cудебные системы Европы. Эффективность и качество системы правосудия // Исследование ЕКЭП. 2016. № 23. C. 23. URL: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/country-profiles/russianfederation (дата обращения: 16.11.2025).
2. Salas Denis, Parquets européens entre pouvoir judiciaire et politiques pénales // Droit et société. 2010. № 1. P. 91–103.
3. Кодекс судоустройства Франции. Статьи L432-1, L432-3. Code de l’oganisation judiciaire français. URL: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/texte_lc/LEGITEXT000006071164/ (дата обращения: 16.11.2025).
4. Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Франции. Статьи 34, 39, 510. Code de procédure pénale français. URL: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006071154/LEGISCTA000006151873/#LEGISCTA000006151873 (дата обращения: 16.11.2025).
5. Ордонанс 58-1270 от 22 декабря 1958 года. Статья 38. Ordonnance n° 58-1270 du 22 décembre 1958 portant loi organique relative au statut de la magistrature. URL: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/JORFTEXT000000339259/LEGISCTA000006091598/ (дата обращения: 16.11.2025).
6. Stefani Gaston, Levasseur Georges, Bouloc Bernard. Procédure pénale. 25e édition. Paris: Dalloz, 2016. 1122 p.
7. Medvedyev et autres c/France, CEDH, req. n° 3394/03, 5ème sect., 10 juillet 2008 et CEDH, gr.ch., 29 mars 2010. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-87368%22]} и https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-97988%22]} (дата обращения: 17.11.2025).
8. Moulin c/ France, CEDH, 5ème sect., 23 novembre 2010, req. n° 37104/06. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-101876%22]} (дата обращения:17.11.2025).
9. Решение Конституционного суда Франции от 11 августа 1993 г. № 93-326 DC. Пункт 5. Décision du Conseil constitutionnel n° 93-326 DC du 11 août 1993. URL: https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/1993/93326DC.htm (дата обращения: 17.11.2025).
10. Leroy Jacques. Procédure pénale. Issy-lesMoulineaux: LGDJ, Lextenso éditions, 2015. 570 p.
11. Решение Кассационного суда Франции от 15 декабря 2010 г. № 10-83.674. Cass. Crim. 15 décembre 2010, n° 10-83.674. URL: https://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/chambre_criminelle_578/7177_15_18415.html (дата обращения: 17.11.2025).
12. Решение Кассационного суда Франции от 18 января 2011 г. № 10-84.980. Cass. Crim. 18 janvier 2011, n° 10-83.674. URL: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000023494706 (дата обращения: 17.11.2025).
13. Решение Конституционного суда Франции от 30 июля 2010 г. № 2010-14/22. Décision n° 2010-14/22 QPC du 30 juillet 2010. URL: https://www.conseilconstitutionnel.fr/decision/2010/201014_22QPC.htm (дата обращения:17.11.2025).
14. Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Германии. § 152, абз. 2. Strafprozessordnung. URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/_152.html (дата обращения: 17.11.2025).
15. Turner J.I. Prosecutors and Bargaining in Weak Cases: A Comparative View // The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective, by Erik Luna and Marianne L. Wade. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. 471 p.
Review
For citations:
Belozerova I.I., Rastopshin R.A. Models of the Organization of the Prosecutor’s Office in Foreign Countries: on the Issue of the Independence of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Discretion of the Prosecutor (Comparative Legal Aspect). The Review of Economy, the Law and Sociology. 2025;(4):157-161. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/1998-5533-2025-4-157-161
Views:
57
JATS XML
Email this article 