Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. A Retrospective Review of the Reform of the Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine during the Period of Independence, with Class Ranks and Prosecutor’s Dress as Elements. – 3. Draft Law (No. 3062 of 13 February 2020) on the Restoration of Class Ranks and Uniforms of Prosecutors. – 3.1. Passing the Regulatory Procedure. – 3.2. Arguments ‘for’ Class Ranks and Prosecutor’s Dress. – 4. Analysis of the Idea of Returning Class Ranks and Prosecutor’s Dress in the Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine. – 4.1. The International Law Aspect (pacta sunt servanda). – 4.2 The Constitutional-functional Aspect. – 4.3. The Procedural Aspect. – 4.4. The Financial (material) Aspect. – 4.5. The Encouraging (stimulating) Aspect. – 4.6. The Psychological Aspect. – 4.7. The Comparative Encouraging Aspect. – 4.8 The Globalisation (comparative law) Aspect. – 4.9. The Cultural (symbolic) Aspect. – 4.10. The Professional Deontological Aspect. – 4.11. The Sociological Aspect. – 5. Conclusions.
legislative amendments to solve this problem, but the approaches of the proposals are in opposition to each other.
According to the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Prosecutor’s Office’ of 19 September 2019, the Ukrainian Parliament, at the ninth convocation, completely abolished the class ranks and military-like dress of prosecutors. At the same time, a Draft Law on their restoration is being considered by the current session of the same parliament, and the initiators call their abolishment a ‘premature mistake’. Regardless of the consequences of the consideration of this Draft Law, this issue may not be resolved in the near future in Ukraine, as it is an integral part of the worldview and culture of the pro-Western or Eurasian vector of the prosecutor’s office.
The aim of the present piece of legal scholarship is to provide a report that is as informative as possible on the consistency between class ranks, prosecutor’s dress, and the principles of justice, the functions of the prosecutor, and his/her role in the justice system in comparison with the approaches of other states. Moreover, it is important to advise the legislative initiatives, and the voice of parliamentarians since this issue has gained traction in the professional environment and in society.
The author analysed the issue of prosecutor’s dress and class ranks in relation to various aspects – constitutional functions and roles of prosecutors, procedural law, comparative law, international law, incentive, as well as psychological, value-philosophical, cultural, and deontological aspects, etc.
The prosecutor’s dress code of the Council of Europe’s 47 member states has been clarified; it was found that only prosecutors from Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia have the military dress; in other countries, prosecutors wore a robe or business suit. Periods of transformation of the prosecutor’s office had taken place in all the post-Soviet republics as a part of their European integration processes – Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, as well as Georgia and Moldova, abandoned the military dress of prosecutors as associate members of the EU.
The remuneration system of prosecutors in Poland and Germany is analysed in detail, where seniority, experience, qualifications, and position are taken into account in the ‘rates’ (Poland) or ‘R levels’ (Germany) of the basic salary of prosecutors. ‘Rates’ and ‘R levels’ are important only for calculating wages and are not analogous to class ranks.