On some problems associated with the participation of the prosecutor in a civil case

The article draws attention to the fact that the current procedural legislation does not differentiate the status of a prosecutor depending on the form of participation in civil proceedings implemented by him. In some cases the prosecutor is a party to the case or “replaces” the absent party; in other cases, he, having no legal interest, gives opinion on how, according to the law, the case should be resolved. The author believes that in the latter case, the prosecutor cannot be recognized as a person participating in the case, and also should not have a number of procedural rights. It is proposed to classify the prosecutor, who enters into a civil case in order to give an opinion on it, to a separate group of subjects “adjacent” to the court and contributing to the correct and timely consideration and resolution of the case. The conclusion of a public prosecutor in a civil case should not be regarded as “ordinary” evidence. First of all, the evidence is presented by the participants in the case, and the prosecutor does not belong to them. In addition, the conclusion of the prosecutor is an act of public authority, and the disagreement of the court with it must be motivated. It is also indicated that in cases where the participation of the prosecutor in the case to give an opinion on it is mandatory by law, the court should not consider the case in his absence.