General approaches to defining the concept of «organization of Prosecutor's office»
Constitutional and legal status of Prosecutor’s Office is the evidence of importance of this institution in society and the State. The Chapter VIII (Justice) of the Constitution has the provisions allowing to tell about the change of the role and the place of Prosecutor’s Office in the state power system. In the same time, the Article 92, paragraph 14, Article 1311 of the Constitution of Ukraine envisages that organization and activity of Prosecutor’s Office are determined exclusively by Law. It should be noted that the Preamble of the Law of Ukraine «On Prosecutor’s Office» states that it defines the legal fundamentals of organization and activity of Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine.
This article highlights the general approaches to uncovering the scope of «organization of Prosecutor’s Office». Attention is drawn to the traditional views of the «organization» as an internal activity and management within the prosecution agencies, where an important role is given to Prosecutor General and heads of prosecution agencies of the appropriate level. In addition, the «organization of Prosecutor's Office» is viewed from the standpoint of the process of creating (forming) Prosecutor's Office as an institution or changing its institutional and functional model by reforming and transforming it into a new model. In this sense, it refers to incorporation of the Prosecutor's Office as an important element of the process of its institutionalization.
It was concluded that the «organization of Prosecutor's office» can be considered as a process of its incorporation and objectification at the level of Law. At the same time, the Law can actually be considered as a materialized carrier of the idea of a certain institutional and functional model of Prosecutor's Office.
In this regard, the role and responsibility of external (in relation to Prosecutor’s Office) entities for its organization and the results of its activities in the future is increased. This conclusion is due to the fact that the «quality» of the legislation is directly related to the efficiency and effectiveness of prosecutorial activity or its ability as a state institution to achieve the purpose and socially beneficial result of its activity, practically influencing public relations in a given direction.
Ovcharenko I.M. (2004). Zakony u systemi dzherel (form) prava ta ikh klasyfikatsiia: avtoref. dys. na zdobuttia nauk. stupenia kand. iuryd. nauk: spets. 12.00.01. Kharkiv: Natsional'nyj un-t vnutrishnikh sprav [in Ukrainian].
Tulenkov M. (2007). Sutnist' i spivvidnoshennia poniat' «orhanizatsiia», «samoorhanizatsiia» i «upravlinnia». Politychnyj menedzhment. 1. [in Ukrainian].
Karkach P. M. (2010). Orhanizatsiia roboty prokuratury mista, rajonu: metod. posib. z orh. roboty v mis'kykh, rajonnykh prokuraturakh. 2-he vyd., dop. Kharkiv : Pravo [in Ukrainian].
Pshonka V. P. Lytvak O.M. (2013). Osnovy orhanizatsii roboty ta upravlinnia v orhanakh prokuratury: pidruch. Kyiv : Alerta [in Ukrainian].
Medved'ko O.I. (2010). Orhanizatsijno-upravlins'ki funktsii i povnovazhennia Heneral'noho prokurora Ukrainy avtoref. dys. na zdobuttia nauk. stupenia kand. iuryd. nauk: 12.00.10. Odesa: Nats. un.-t «Odes'ka iurydychna akademiia» [in Ukrainian].
Velykyj tlumachnyj slovnyk suchasnoi ukrains'koi movy / uklad. i hol. red. V. T. Busel. Kyiv : Irpin': Perun, 2009 [in Ukrainian].
Kovbasiuk S.V. (2009). Suchasna interpretatsiia poniattia «instytutsionalizatsiia». Aktual'ni problemy derzhavy i prava: zbirnyk naukovykh prats'. 50 [in Ukrainian]
Khutynaev Y. D. (2006).Ynstytutsyonalyzatsyia orhanov hosudarstvennoj vlasty Rossyjskoj Federatsyy: avtoref. dys. na soyskanye uch. stepeny dokt. iuryd. nauk: 12.00.02. Moskva: Rossyjskaia akademyia hosudarstvennoj sluzhby [in Russian].