Thesis (LLM )--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In the field of administrative law, the judiciary has traditionally exercised control over the administrative actions of the executive through judicial review. However, judicial review is neither the most effective nor the most efficient primary control mechanism for systemic administrative improvement. In a country faced with a task of =transformative constitutionalism‘, and hindered with scarce resources, there is good cause to limit judicial intervention as the first response to administrative disputes. The major theme of this thesis is to investigate the feasibility of administrative tribunal reform in South Africa, using two other commonwealth countries, Australia and England, as a basis for comparison. Australia and England have been chosen for comparison because they share similar administrative law traditions and they can provide working models of coherent tribunal structures. The Australian tribunal system is well-established and consists of tribunals which fall under the control of the executive, while tribunals in England have recently undergone a significant transformation, and are now part of the independent judiciary. The South African government currently spends, indeed wastes, a significant amount of money on administrative law litigation. Due to the limitations of judicial review, even after the high costs of litigation and the long duration of court proceedings, the results achieved may still be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, judicial review is unsuited to giving effect to systemic administrative change and the improvement of initial decision-making. Australia and England have begun to move away from the traditional court model for the resolution of administrative disputes. Both have indicated a preference for the important role of tribunals in the administration of disputes. Tribunals have been shown to offer the advantage of being speedier, cheaper, more efficient, more participatory and more accessible than traditional courts, which contributes to tribunals being a more available resource for lay people or people without sophisticated legal knowledge, and provides wider access to remedies than courts. The English and Australian models indicate a few important trends which need to be applied universally to ensure a sustained tribunal reform and a system which provides a higher level of administrative redress than the over-burdened and institutionally inept courts currently do. These include co-operation among government departments and tribunals; open and accountable systemic change; the need for supervision and evaluation of the whole of administrative law by an independent and competent body; and ultimately a focus on the needs of users of state services. At the same time, there are arguments against administrative tribunal reform. These include the costs of reform; the ways to establish tribunals; and the level of independence shown by the tribunals. These arguments are especially relevant in the South African context, where the government faces huge social problems and a scarcity of resources. However, after an analysis of the valuable characteristics of tribunals and the role that they serve in the day to day administration of justice, it is difficult to see how these objections to tribunals can outweigh their potential importance in the administrative justice system. The need for sustained systematic reform in South Africa is one that cannot be ignored. Tribunals offer a valuable alternative to judicial review for the resolution of administrative disputes. Furthermore, the tribunal systems of Australia and England demonstrate how the effective creation and continued use of comprehensive tribunal structures contributes firstly to cost reduction and secondly to ease the administrative burden on courts who are not suited to cure large-scale administrative error. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In die administratiefreg oefen die regsprekende gesag tradisioneel beheer uit oor die uitvoerende gesag deur middel van geregtelike hersiening. Geregtelike hersiening is egter nie die mees doeltreffende of effektiewe primêre beheermeganisme om sistemiese administratiewe verbetering teweeg te bring nie. In 'n land met die uitdagings van 'transformatiewe konstitusionalisme‘ en skaars hulpbronne, kan 'n goeie argument gevoer word dat geregtelike inmenging as die eerste antwoord op administratiewe dispute beperk moet word. Die deurlopende tema van hierdie tesis is 'n ondersoek na die lewensvatbaarheid van hervorming van administratiewe tribunale in Suid-Afrika, in vergelyking met die posisie in Australië en Engeland, waarvan beide ook, tesame met Suid-Afrika, deel vorm van die Statebond. Hierdie lande is gekies vir regsvergelykende studie aangesien hulle 'n administratiefregtelike tradisie met Suid-Afrika deel en beide werkende modelle van duidelike tribunale strukture daarstel. Die Australiese tribunale stelsel is goed gevestig en bestaan uit tribunale onder die beheer van die uitvoerende gesag, terwyl die tribunale stelsel in Engeland onlangs 'n beduidende hervorming ondergaan het en nou deel van die onafhanklike regsprekende gesag is. Die Suid-Afrikaanse regering mors aansienlike hoeveelhede geld op administratiefregtelike litigasie. Selfs na hoë koste en lang vertragings van litigasie mag die resultate steeds onbevredigend wees as gevolg van die beperkings inherent aan geregtelike hersiening. Tesame met hierdie oorwegings is geregtelike hersiening ook nie gerig op sistemiese administratiewe verandering en verbetering van aanvanklike besluitneming nie. Australië en Engeland het onlangs begin wegbeweeg van die tradisionele hof-gebaseerde model vir die oplossing van administratiewe dispute. Beide toon 'n voorkeur vir die belangrike rol wat tribunale in die administrasie van dispute kan speel Tribunale bied die bewese voordele om vinniger, goedkoper, meer doeltreffend, meer deelnemend en meer toeganklik te wees as tradisionele howe, sodat tribunale 'n meer beskikbare hulpbron is vir leke, oftewel, persone sonder gesofistikeerde regskennis en dus beter toegang tot remedies as tradisionele howe verskaf. Die Engelse en Australiese modelle dui op enkele belangrike tendense wat universeel toegepas moet word om volgehoue tribunale hervorming te verseker en om =n stelsel te skep wat 'n hoër vlak van administratiewe geregtigheid daarstel as wat oorlaaide en institusioneel onbekwame howe kan. Dit verwys bepaald na samewerking tussen staatsdepartemente en tibunale; deursigtige en verantwoordbare sistemiese veranderinge; die behoefte aan toesighouding en evaluasie van die hele administratiefreg deur 'n onafhanklike, bevoegde liggaam; en uiteindelik 'n fokus op die behoeftes van die gebruikers van staatsdienste. Daar is egter terselfdertyd ook argumente teen administratiewe tribunale hervorming. Hierdie argumente sluit in die koste van hervorming; die wyses waarop tribunale gevestig word; en die vlak van onafhanklikheid voorgehou deur tribunale. Hierdie argumente is veral relevant in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks waar die regering voor groot sosiale probleme te staan kom en daarby ingesluit, 'n tekort aan hulpbronne ook moet hanteer. Daarenteen is dit moeilik om in te sien hoe enige teenkanting en teenargumente met betrekking tot die vestiging van administratiewe tribunale swaarder kan weeg as die potensiële belang van sulke tribunale in die administratiewe geregtigheidstelsel, veral nadat 'n analise van die waardevolle karaktereienskappe van tribunale en die rol wat hulle speel in die dag-tot-dag administrasie van geregtigheid onderneem is. Die behoefte aan volhoubare sistemiese hervorming in Suid-Afrika kan nie geïgnoreer word nie. Tribunale bied 'n waardevolle alternatief tot geregtelike hersiening met die oog op die oplossing van administratiewe dispute. Tesame hiermee demonstreer die tribunale stelsels in Australië en Engeland hoe die doeltreffende vestiging en deurlopende gebruik van omvattende tribunale bydra, eerstens om kostes verbonde aan die oplossing van administratiewe dispute te verlaag en tweedens, om die administratiewe las op die howe, wat nie aangelê is daarvoor om grootskaalse administratiewe foute reg te stel nie, te verlig.

No description available.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2016-08-09T13:09:47Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Bianca Ramos Xavier.pdf: 1868376 bytes, checksum: 709d0860aaadf206a69d052f98068979 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-09T13:09:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Bianca Ramos Xavier.pdf: 1868376 bytes, checksum: 709d0860aaadf206a69d052f98068979 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-31 / Analyze the ruling effects on the phenomenon of tax incidence will be the purpose of this doctoral dissertation. The goal is to investigate if the Judiciary can deconstitute it in cases of the favorable decision to the taxpayer's interests. In case of the positive answer to establish the deconstitution boundaries of the Carf's decision. This research will be very important because the judicial review main will result in the weakening of tax administrative litigation and the glut of tax litigations at the judicial level. The analysis will be carried out taking into account the role of the tax assessment on the tax incidence, the structure of the tax administrative litigation, the administrative judicial review of doctrine of administrative acts and, finally, the possibility of judicial review of 64 Carf's lawsuits / A proposta da presente tese de doutorado é analisar os efeitos da decisão administrativa sobre o fenômeno da incidência tributária. O objetivo é pesquisar se o Poder Judiciário pode desconstituí-la nas hipóteses em que a decisão for favorável aos interesses do contribuinte e, caso a resposta seja positiva, estabelecer os limites para a desconstituição da decisão proferida pelo Carf. A investigação é relevante, pois, a possibilidade ampla e irrestrita da revisão judicial acarretará no enfraquecimento do contencioso administrativo tributário e no abarrotamento das lides tributárias em âmbito judicial. A análise será realizada levando-se em consideração o papel do lançamento tributário no fenômeno de incidência tributária, a estrutura do contencioso administrativo fiscal, a visão da doutrina administrativista sobre a revisão judicial dos atos administrativos e, por fim, a possibilidade da revisão judicial das decisões do Carf, notadamente sobre o princípio da segurança jurídica, levando-se em conta, inclusive, as 64 ações judiciais ajuizadas com o propósito específico de discutir o mérito das decisões do Carf

Zugl.: Potsdam, Univ., Diss.

The scholarly consensus on the political foundations of independent constitutional review – that it invariably stems from electoral and inter-branch competition – has been weakened by recent empirical discoveries which demonstrated that constitutional courts in a number of authoritarian states are actually more activist than previously assumed. This dissertation examines this phenomenon using the case of Hong Kong, an authoritarian polity first under the sovereignty of Britain and then of China. It is widely believed that the competence of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – a cosmopolitan common law final appellate court – to strike down legislative and executive acts, and its ability to induce the regime’s compliance with its rulings, is intrinsic to the Basic Law, just as it is in liberal democracies. Nevertheless, two interrelated anomalous phenomena – the Court’s repeated issuance of activist rulings with near-complete impunity, and the continuing forbearance of China’s foremost constitutional authority, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), faced with the Court’s aggressive assertions – necessitates careful explanation. This dissertation proposes an explanatory Constitutional Investment Theory, which highlights the similarities between “investment” in constitutional review and investment in financial assets, to explain the activation, consolidation, and ascendancy of independent constitutional review in authoritarian settings. It shows how strong incentives to signal its ideological commitment to the “One Country, Two Systems” scheme, both internationally and domestically, first drove the NPCSC to acquiesce in the Court’s self-aggrandisement; how internal divisions within and external opposition to the Hong Kong regime have rendered retaliation a costly option; and how the Court’s strategic resolution of the Basic Law’s ambiguities has encouraged continuous political investment in its jurisdiction and autonomy. Altogether, these have contributed to the formation of a dynamic equilibrium of constitution control, under which the Court and the NPCSC dynamically developed their own jurisprudence within their respective bailiwicks.

My thesis deals with the legal concept of sovereign Parliament, the very keystone of British constitution according to A. V. Dicey. This model has been challenged both normatively and descriptively. Concerning the normative point of view, concept of unlimited sovereignty is incoherent. Descriptively, courts don't simply take the parliamentary supremacy for granted, even if they say so. Relationship between the Parliament and courts is certainly more complex than Dicey suggested. Goals of this thesis are rather tentative. Since the popularity of this topic among British constitutional lawyers, comprehensive analysis is implausible due to the limited space. This paper aims to gather fundamental theories and disputes regarding the parliamentary sovereignty and its relationship with courts. In other words, it explores connection between the Parliament and courts in contemporary British constitution. First chapter analyses the constitutional conventions, which forms the basics of several other fundamental concepts in UK constitution. It suggests that there are no clear boundaries between law and conventions. Second chapter focuses on the general concept of sovereignty and Diceyan classic theory of Parliamentary sovereignty. There is also a brief explanation of sovereignty's connection to Scot's law....

Cette acception n'est plus vraie puisque le droit français montre une consécration plus importante de l'exclusion d'un associé. C'est en raison de l'utilité que peut présenter ce procédé qu'il y a eu une multiplication des cas d'exclusion depuis le XXe siècle. Cette multiplication a pour objectif principal de préserver l'intérêt de la société ou de l'entreprise, et de sanctionner l'associé fautif. Cependant, son utilité n'a pas pu fonder une généralisation d'un droit d'exclusion en droit des sociétés. Jusqu'ici, l'exclusion unilatérale demeure une hypothèse rejetée.En effet, la généralisation du droit d'exclusion se heurte à d'importants risques d'exercice arbitraire des gérants ou des organes de société. C'est donc au niveau de la mise en œuvre de l'exclusion que se fondent les hésitations concernant la validation de l'exclusion comme technique ordinaire et utile, indépendamment de toute clause ou texte légal. Notre présente étude met l'accent sur l'utilité de l'exclusion dans ses deux formes validées par le législateur (imposée et acceptée), ainsi que sur les failles dans les règles régissant la mise en œuvre de ces formes d'exclusion. La mise en œuvre de l'exclusion est une question qui préoccupe toujours la jurisprudence et la doctrine. / The endorsement of the exclusion technique was linked to the context of social capital variability. This articulation is no longer valid since the French laws showed a more important utilization of the concept of “exclusion”. There has been an increase in cases of exclusion during the 20th century because of the utility in presenting this process. This rise's main objective is to preserve the interests of the companies or businesses, and to punish the guilty partner. Its usefulness did not lead to generalize the exclusion laws into corporate laws. The unilateral exclusion is a hypothesis rejected until now. Indeed, the generalization of an exclusion law faces significant risks of arbitrary usage by the managers or members of society. It is the implementation of exclusion that makes the basis for hesitations concerning the validation of exclusion as a common and useful technique regardless of any clause or legal text. Our present study focuses on the usefulness of the exclusion in its two forms approved by the legislature (imposed and accepted), as well as the loopholes in the rules governing the realization of these forms. Till date, the implementation of exclusion remains a perplex matter, jurisprudence and doctrine.

A opção pela forma federativa de governo importa em compromisso com a existência de mais de um ente responsável, em territórios sobrepostos, pela realização das tarefas de arrecadação e gasto público, além de suas inerentes atividades políticas. O exercício dessas tarefas pode ser definido com rigor, em um regime dual, ou com possibilidade de auxílios mútuos, em um regime de cooperação. O Brasil adotou, como cláusula pétrea em sua Constituição, a forma de federação cooperativa, estruturada em três níveis de governo, tendo como consequência a divisão de competências materiais entre os componentes dessa federação. Apesar disso, os Tribunais brasileiros têm insistido em sustentar a tese de solidariedade obrigacional entre todos os entes federados em processo que tenham por objeto o controle de políticas públicas sociais. A imposição dessa obrigação solidária, além de desrespeitar a estrutura federativa e afrontar os princípios da efetividade e economicidade da administração com sobreposições e sobrecargas que facilitam o desperdício de verbas e a corrupção ainda não atenta para a regra de ouro da imposição de solidariedade obrigacional, que é a menção expressa em dispositivo legal ou constitucional. Conforme será demonstrado, as decisões proferidas pelos Tribunais nacionais em sede de controle jurisdicional de políticas públicas vem ignorando todo o arcabouço jurídico acerca do tema, além de impor aos entes federados desnecessária dificuldade de gestão de suas competências e de seus recursos financeiros. A defesa de responsabilidades divididas, porém, poderia gerar efeitos nefastos. É que, em sede processual, a demanda ajuizada em face do ente não diretamente responsável pela execução da política pública questionada poderia ser extinta sem resolução do mérito, impondo atrasos à efetivação de direitos sociais decorrentes de óbices processuais. Como os direitos fundamentais categoria na qual estão inseridos os direitos sociais exigem efetivação imediata e são sindicáveis judicialmente a partir dos comandos genéricos dados pela Constituição, foi preciso recorrer a uma técnica antiga já prevista no Brasil, porém mal compreendida de integração subjetiva da demanda por ordem do juiz, a intervenção iussu iudicis. Para evitar a repetição de erros, será refeito o caminho histórico de surgimento e desenvolvimento dessa técnica para melhor compreensão de seus escopos. / The option for the federal form of government matter commitment to the existence of more than one entity responsible, in overlapping territories, for performing the tasks of public collection and spending beyond their inherent political activities. The exercise of these tasks can be defined rigorously, in a dual system, or with the possibility of mutual aid, in a regime of cooperation. Brazil has adopted as entrenchment clause in its Constitution, a cooperative federation, structured in three levels of government, resulting in the division of powers between the material components of this federation. Nevertheless, the Brazilian Courts insisted on supporting the thesis of a mandatory solidarity among all federal entities in the suits whose purpose is the control of public policies. The imposition of such solidarity, besides disregarding the federal structure and defy the principles of effectiveness and economy of administration - with overlays and overloads that facilitate waste of money and corruption - not attentive to the golden rule imposing mandatory solidarity, which is the expressly stated in law or constitutional provision. As will be shown, the decisions handed down by national courts in the seat of judicial control of public policies has ignored the whole legal structure of the topic, and impose to federal entities an unnecessary difficulty in managing their skills and their financial resources. The defense of divided responsibilities, however, could generate adverse effects. Is that in procedural field, a suit filed in the face of an entity not being directly responsible for the execution of the questioned public policy demand could be terminated without resolution, imposing delays to the realization of social rights under procedural obstacles. As fundamental rights - the category in which they belong social rights - require effective immediately be investigated and are chargeable from generic commands given by the Constitution, it was necessary to resort to an old technique - already foreseen in Brazil, but poorly understood - a subjective integration demand by the judge\'s order, the intervention iussu iudicis. To avoid repeating mistakes, will be redone historical path emergence and development of this technique to better understand their scopes.

Historicamente, o ideal democrático apropriou-se do poder legislativo para se expressar. Imbuído da difícil missão de tornar factível a aspiração de autogoverno, esse poder parece encontrar no instituto da revisão judicial um grave escolho para sua tarefa. Quem deve ser o detentor da última palavra na conformação política da sociedade, judiciário ou parlamento? Sob qual justificativa um conjunto de juízes não eleitos e irresponsáveis perante o povo poderia derrubar uma decisão política tomada pela maioria de seus representantes? O principal objetivo desse trabalho consiste em reavaliar criticamente algumas das mais influentes respostas apresentadas contemporaneamente. Como conclusão geral, questiono o valor das próprias perguntas a partir das quais o debate costuma ser desenvolvido, indicando uma nova e mais promissora perspectiva de análise / Historically the democratic ideal has used the legislative to express itself. Charged with the difficult mission to make feasible the self-government aspiration, this power seems to find in judicial review a grave obstacle for its mission. Who must have the last word in societal political conformation, judiciary or parliament? Under what justification a group of unelected and unaccountable judges could strike down a political decision made by the majority of the people´s representatives? The major scope of this research is to reevaluate critically some of the most influential answers developed nowadays. As a general conclusion, I question the very question´s value from which the debate is usually developed, indicating a new and more promising analysis perspective.

O estudo das políticas públicas recentemente tem despertado a atenção da doutrina no âmbito do Direito. O presente trabalho busca apresentar um quadro geral das políticas públicas previdenciárias, demonstrando a intersecção existente entre o Direito e a Ciência Política, as contribuições de cada disciplina e as tênues fronteiras que as separam. A esfera do Direito, sob a perspectiva do Poder Judiciário, estabelece os parâmetros e limites do controle dos atos editados pelos outros Poderes, à luz dos instrumentos jurídicos previstos no ordenamento, tendo como objetivo a efetivação do direito fundamental à previdência social. A análise de casos concretos, colhidos da jurisprudência pátria, revela alguma oscilação do Poder Judiciário na defesa do direito fundamental em questão, especialmente em decorrência de argumentos de natureza econômica, introduzidos no texto constitucional por meio das reformas de 1998 e 2003. / The analysis of public policies has recently raised the attention in the scope of law. This study has the purpose of presenting a comprehensive view of the public policies on Social Security, by demonstrating the intersection between Law and Political Science, the contributions of each area of study as well as the tenuous frontiers separating them. The scope of law, under the perspective of the Judiciary, establishes the patterns and the limits to regulate the measures taken by Executive and Legislative Power, having as reference the juridical instruments stated by the legal system, whose purpose is to safeguard the right to social security. The analysis of concrete cases, gathered from the Brazilian case law, reveals a lack of coherence and consistency of the Judiciary to uphold the right to social security. This incoherence and inconsistency are mainly due to economic arguments, which were introduced in the Constitution by the time of the reforms carried out in 1998 and 2003.