ПОРІВНЯЛЬНИЙ АНАЛІЗ СИСТЕМ ПРОФЕСІЙНОГО РОЗВИТКУ ПРОКУРОРІВ: ЄВРОПЕЙСЬКІ СТАНДАРТИ ТА ВІТЧИЗНЯНА ПРАКТИКА

Abstract

The article provides a thorough comparative
analysis of prosecutors’ professional development
systems in the context of European standards and
Ukrainian practice. It examines key international
instruments of the Council of Europe, in particular
Recommendation Rec(2000)19 and Opinion No. 9 of
the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors,
which constitute the normative basis for
understanding professional development as an
integral right and obligation of a prosecutor.
The study analyses approaches to the
organisation of the training process, the structure of
continuing professional development (CPD),
institutional autonomy, evaluation procedures for
prosecutors, and the link between training and career
advancement in France, Germany and the
Netherlands. Particular attention is paid to
institutional models (the National School for the
Judiciary (ENM) in France, the Training and Study
Centre for the Judiciary (SSR) in the Netherlands, and
the German Judges Academy – Deutsche
Richterakademie in Germany), which operate
independently of the executive branch and provide a
wide range of initial training and CPD programmes.
A separate section is devoted to the analysis of
the national system of prosecutors’ professional
development formed as a result of the prosecution
reform launched in 2014. The article examines the
regulatory framework, the institutional architecture
(the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of
Prosecutors, the Training Centre of Prosecutors of
Ukraine, and the Office of the Prosecutor General), as
well as the forms and content of initial training and
advanced professional training. The paper also
describes certification mechanisms, the newly
introduced system of annual performance evaluation
of prosecutors, and challenges related to resource
provision, the organisational autonomy of the
Training Centre of Prosecutors of Ukraine, the
implementation of distance learning and specialised
training courses.
The analysis demonstrates that, despite
Ukraine’s significant progress in developing a system
of prosecutors’ professional development, the national
model requires further improvement in terms of
resource support, institutional autonomy of training
programmes, broader coverage of continuing
education, and a stronger link between performance
evaluation and professional growth. The conclusions
and recommendations formulated in the article may be
used in the further reform of the prosecution service of
Ukraine and in the development of a prosecutors’
training system in line with European standards.
Key words: professional development,
prosecutor, European standards, labour law, labour
relations, human resources, advanced training,
evaluation, Training Centre of Prosecutors of
Ukraine.