POLITICAL NEUTRALITY OF THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE AND THE CHALLENGING OF THE PROSECUTOR IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: PROBLEM ISSUES

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of the essence of the principle of political neutrality as the basis of the activity of the prosecutor's office and its influence on the application of the institution of challenging of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings. The international legal and national regulation of this issue is analyzed, including in the context of the ethical behavior of the prosecutor, doctrinal approaches, the reasons for challenging of the prosecutor are discussed, and examples from court practice are used. The position on the functional, not organizational, nature of this principle is supported, and the problematic issues of correlation with the principle of independence of prosecutors are indicated. Based on the analysis of court cases, it is indicated that the following aspects should be taken into account in the context of challenging of a prosecutor in criminal proceedings: first, lack of political neutrality requires proper identification; secondly, manifestations of lack of political neutrality need to be evaluated in each specific case; third, the lack of political neutrality as a violation of incompatibility requirements will have disciplinary consequences and may have procedural consequences in a specific criminal proceedings. It has been indicated that the principle of political neutrality of the prosecutor's office, although formulated as such in the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office", does not have an organizational nature in itself, but is functional in nature and concerns purely the activity of prosecutors, in particular, although not only, the ethical aspect of activity. The lack of political neutrality can be grounds for challenging under Clause 3, Part 1 of Art. 77 of the CCP of Ukraine (if he personally, his close relatives or members of his family are interested in the results of criminal proceedings or there are other circumstances that raise reasonable doubts about his impartiality), if this circumstance must be properly proven.