Here is the translation of the legal analysis:
1. Subject of Dispute: The prosecutor attempted to challenge the inaction of authorities regarding the failure to provide free meals to children from internally displaced persons at a vocational school.
2. Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court considers that this case concerns the protection of specific children’s rights, not a state interest. The court emphasized that a prosecutor can represent state interests only in two cases: if an authority does not protect interests or such an authority is absent. In this case, the protection of children’s rights should be carried out by their parents or the prosecutor in the interests of a specific individual.
3. Court Decision: The prosecutor’s cassation complaint was left unsatisfied, and the court decisions of previous instances remained unchanged.
