Annotation

The article discusses whether a rule may emerge in Russian arbitration procedure that singles out the giving of a conclusion by the prosecutor as a separate form of participation, following the model existing in civil procedure. The author analyses the main doctrinal approaches to the nature of the prosecutor's conclusion and argues that they are not mutually exclusive. The prosecutor giving a conclusion has an independent procedural interest, which distinguishes this figure from the classical amicus curiae and brings it closer to a state body giving an opinion on a case; the related limitations on the powers of proof are considered. Drawing on the evolution of Article 52 of the Arbitration Procedure Code, the author shows that the development of the rules moved towards active support of public interest rather than neutral expert participation, and concludes that a separate rule on the prosecutor's conclusion in the Arbitration Procedure Code is unlikely, whereas a further “investigative” evolution of the prosecutor's powers is probable.