Introduction. The article analyzes the trends in the development of the conceptual substantiation of the prosecutor’s representation of the State’s interests in court as one of the functions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Ukraine, which is one of the constitutionally enshrined areas of the prosecutor’s office’s activities aimed at protecting the interests of the State in court in exceptional cases and in accordance with the procedure established by law. The legal uncertainty inherent in the legal regulation of this function of the Public Prosecutor’s Office leads to an active scientific and expert-practical discourse, which is periodically updated with the emergence of new legal positions of courts or legislative initiatives in this area, which creates preconditions for identifying new trends in the development of the conceptual justification of this function of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The purpose of the article is to highlight the current trends in the development of the conceptual substantiation of the representative function of the Public Prosecutor’s Office through the prism of dynamic changes in legislation, ambiguity of its application practice and legislative initiatives in the field of the issues under study.
Summary of the main results of the study. It is stated that the representative function of the Public Prosecutor’s Office under the current legislative regulation is characterized by certain legal uncertainty and defects in legislative regulation. Legislative initiatives aimed at regulating this issue are not systematic and demonstrate the need for a clear legislative vision of the ways of conceptual development of the representative function of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The author establishes the lack of consensus on the peculiarities of the Public Prosecutor’s Office representative function at the level of scientific discourse, especially regarding the scope of the object of prosecutorial representation. The author highlights the legal position of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding the representative function of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and provides arguments for considering it as determining a new vector of conceptual development this function at the present stage.
Conclusions. The author identifies the following current trends in the development of the conceptual justification of the representative function of the Public Prosecutor’s Office: inconsistency of the legislative regulation of the representative function of the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the constitutional provisions on the scope of the object of prosecutorial representation; insignificant attention to the issues of conceptual development of this function of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the documents which form the strategic directions of development of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Ukraine; lack of a clear legislative vision of ways to conceptually bring the legislative regulation of the representative function of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in line with its constitutional legal provisions; polarity of doctrinal views on the object and scope of prosecutorial representation due to their unclear regulatory definition; formation of a new vector of conceptual development of the representative function of the Public Prosecutor’s Office - monopolization of the prosecutor’s powers to represent the interests of the state in court.
