Review

Integrating the idea in Ukraine of disciplinary procedure for prosecutors in according to international standards and bringing it closer to the model of disciplinary liability of judges has implemented since 2011.

The Law of Ukraine "About Prosecutor's Office", which was adopted in 2014, introduced the creation of a collegial body - Qualification and Disciplinary the Commission of Public Prosecutors (QDCPP, Commission).

At the same time, introducing a procedure of attraction to disciplinary liability of the prosecutor similar to that used for the judges seems unjustified.

The prosecutor is not always (similar to judge) procedurally independent figure and most often works under the guidance of other prosecutors more high level.

In this regard, it`s not likely to establish the same guarantees of independence at the legislative level for both judges and prosecutors. This also applies to guarantees of attraction to disciplinary liability of prosecutors.

The availability of such high guarantees from judges relates to particular features of their legal status, in particular, that their main task under Article 124 of the Constitution of Ukraine is to implement justice, and therefore to make a final decision, in so doing, each judge making these decisions independently.

Fixing similar guarantees which are included in Law of Ukraine "About the Prosecutor's Office" in reality looks like a bright cover for the international community, which, in fact, does not correspond to the true state of affairs as in the middle the body itself, and for the average citizen whose rights have been violated decision, action (inaction) of the prosecutor.

The purpose of this article is to find out the similarity of procedures of attraction to disciplinary liability of judges and prosecutors.

Basic approaches to define the concept of legal liability are explored, it is established that disciplinary liability is a kind of retrospective (negative) legal liability.

Problems of disciplinary proceedings against prosecutors are outlined.

It was found that most complaints against prosecutors were initiated by heads of prosecutor's offices or higher bodies of prosecutor's office for the results of inspections and in-service investigations.

During the study of the stated problems, veiled discretion of the QDCPP on granting permission to the person who filed the disciplinary complaint about the act prosecutor of a disciplinary misdemeanor, on appeal of the Commission decision to The High Council of Justice are analyzed.

Due to the problem has been discovered, special attention is paid to the procedure of appeal against decisions of the QDCPP to the High Council of Justice and to the Court.

It is concluded, that the introduction of a radically new system of attraction to disciplinary liability of prosecutors is timely. However, to avoid unlawful disciplinary prosecution at within the system of the prosecuting authorities and to ensure interests persons, whose rights have been violated by the unlawful actions of prosecutors, are necessary change approaches and enforcement practices in the activities of the QDCPP itself.

Keywords: legal liability, disciplinary liability, prosecutor, attraction to disciplinary liability of the prosecutor.