Le droit d'accès au tribunal garantit au justiciable un accès concret et effectif à un juge afin d'obtenir une décision de justice. L'Etat doit offrir aux justiciables un accès aux juridictions qui répond aux attentes de ses usagers. Cependant, l'application d'une vision managériale en matière budgétaire pousse l'Etat depuis l'adoption de la LOLF à réformer le service public de la justice selon une logique de performance et de gestion des flux qui recherche à désengager l'Etat et à réduire les dépenses publiques. Cette vision risque alors de s'opposer à la promotion d'un accès au tribunal. Ainsi, la thèse s'attache à examiner les réformes de l'organisation juridictionnelle non pas au prisme d'une vision managériale mais au prisme des attentes du justiciable. Deux aspects du droit d'accès au tribunal doivent alors être analysés. D'une part, l'accès au tribunal nécessite de s'interroger sur les conditions permettant d'accéder réellement à la juridiction. La capabilité du justiciable permettra de dégager ces conditions. D'autre part, le droit d'accès au tribunal poursuit une finalité courte qu'est la décision de justice et une finalité longue qu'est la pacification sociale. Afin de tendre à ces finalités, le droit d'accès au tribunal doit rechercher l'acceptabilité de la décision de justice par le justiciable. / The right of access to the Courts is to provide litigants a concrete and effective access to judges in order to obtain a Court's decision. The State has to ensure such an access to the Courts in a way to better adress litigants' needs. However, the State's managerial vision on the national budget since the LOLF Reform steers Justice reforms towards a performance logic and workflow management resulting in a State withdrawal. Such an approach is contravening the promotion of a right of access to the Courts. This research aims to tackle Justice reforms regarding litigants needs without regards to the management point of view. Two aspects of the right of access to the Courts shall be analysed in this respect. Firstly, one shall look at the concrete conditions to access Courts. Litigants' capabilities is a usefull concept in this respect. Secondly, the right of access to the Courts aims at providing a judicial decision (short purpose) and at providing peacekeeping (long purpose). To fulfill those two purposes the right of access to the Courts is to based on and has to ensure litigants' acceptance of judicial decisions.

L’Acte uniforme portant organisation des procédures collectives d’apurement du passif, adopté le 10 avril 1998 à Libreville et entré en vigueur le 1er janvier 1998 est venu harmoniser le droit de la faillite dans les pays membres de l’Organisation pour l’Harmonisation en Afrique du droit des Affaires (OHADA). En effet, ces pays étaient jusque là, en la matière, dotés de textes inadaptés datant de l’époque coloniale. Au regard de la parenté aujourd’hui avérée des ordres juridiques africain et français en Droit des entreprises en difficulté, il n’était pas inintéressant de mener une étude comparative sur le rôle du juge dans le sauvetage de l’entreprise en difficulté dans les deux systèmes. L’étude révèle qu’en droit africain et en droit français, les degrés d’intervention du juge varient selon que l’entreprise est in bonis ou selon qu’elle est en état de cessation des paiements. Pour permettre au juge de mener à bien la mission de sauvetage de l’entreprise en difficulté, les législateurs africain et français lui ont octroyé des moyens d’action processuels qui se caractérisent de manière tantôt convergente et tantôt divergente selon les cas, par une maîtrise de l’instance et, par l’exécution immédiate des décisions judiciaires rendues. L’étude révèle cependant l’existence dans les deux ordres juridiques de nombreux obstacles qui s’opposent à la mission de sauvetage incombant aux juges africain et français, obstacles tant d’ordre fonctionnel que d’ordre structurel. A côté des solutions apportées ici et là à toutes ces problématiques, et à bien d’autres soulevées tout au long de l’étude, de nouvelles propositions sont faites pour rendre l’action du juge plus efficiente. Il reste que, qu’il s’agisse du droit africain ou du droit français, à travers la question relative au rôle du juge dans le sauvetage de l’entreprise en difficulté, se pose la récurrente problématique de la réelle capacité du droit à juguler les phénomènes économiques. / The Uniform Act organizing collective proceedings for discharge of liabilities, adopted on 10 April 1998 in Libreville and entered into force on 1 January 1998 came harmonize the insolvency law in the Member countries of the Organization for the Harmonization of the law of Affairs (OHADA). Indeed, these countries were up there, in material, with inadequate texts dating from the colonial era. Under today proven relatives of African and French legal systems in law firms in difficulty, it was interesting to carry out a comparative study on the role of the judge in the rescue of the firm in difficulty in both systems. The study reveals that African law and French law, judge's intervention levels vary depending on whether the company is in bonuses or depending on whether it is in a State of cessation of payments. To enable the judge to carry out the mission to rescue of the firm in difficulty, African and French lawmakers have granted action procedural means characterized sometimes convergent and sometimes divergent manner as appropriate, by a master of the instance and immediate execution of judicial decisions. However, the study reveals the existence in both legal orders of many obstacles that oppose the incumbent judges African and French, rescue mission obstacles so many functional order than structural. Next to the solutions here and all these problems, there other proposals are made to make more efficient action by the judge. It remains that, whether it's African law or French law, through the question of the role of the judge in the rescue of the firm in difficulty, arises the recurring problem of the real capacity of the law to curb economic phenomena.

Si l’on s’accorde à dire que les droits de la défense sont un principe fondamental du droit processuel sans lequelune procédure ne saurait être dite équitable, le sens technique de cette notion demeure aujourd’hui toujoursobscur. En effet, l’approche traditionnelle consistant à définir les droits de la défense comme un ensemble degaranties dont dispose toute partie à une procédure afin d’y défendre ses intérêts ne parvient pas à lever toutesles incertitudes et, surtout, ne permet pas de comprendre rationnellement l’ensemble des hypothèses danslesquelles on peut constater leur utilisation technique et concrète.En arrière-plan des différentes garanties, les droits de la défense semblent se présenter comme un conceptdistinct de celles-ci. Ils sont en eux-mêmes une véritable norme introduite en droit positif sous la forme d’unprincipe fondamental dont les différentes garanties assurent l’effectivité. Imposant que toute personne soumise àun pouvoir décisionnel soit mise en mesure de se défendre, c’est-à-dire de soutenir ou de contester uneprétention, cette norme irrigue concrètement le droit positif en fondant aussi bien la nullité d’une procédure quel’irresponsabilité pénale de l’auteur d’une infraction. / If it is agreed that defense rights are a fundamental principle of procedural law, without which, no trial could besaid to be fair, the technical sense of this concept still remains obscure today. Traditionally defined as anensemble of guarantees, which each party to the proceedings is entitled to in order to defend its interests, thisplural approach to the concept does not however remove all uncertainties. It especially does not allow us torationally understand all the situations in which we can see its concrete and technical application.Among the different guarantees, defense rights seem to present themselves as a distinct, separate concept. Theyare in themselves a true standard introduced into the substasntive law in the form of a fundamental principlewhere the different guarantees ensure its effectiveness. Stating that any person subject to a decision-makingauthority should be able to defend her or himself, that is to say to support or to deny a claim, this legal standardencompasses, concretely, positive law by basing both the nullity of a procedure and the irresponsibility of anoffender.

This thesis examines the validity of exclusionary clauses in medical contracts, more especially, hospital contracts in which the healthcare provider exonerates itself against edictal liability arising from the negligent conduct of its staff, resulting in the patient suffering damages. In assessing whether these types of clauses should be outlawed by our courts, this thesis attempts to synthesize six major traditional areas of law, namely, the law of delict, the law of contract, medical law and ethics, international and foreign law, statutory law and constitutional law into a legal conceptual framework relating specifically to exclusionary clauses in medical contracts in South Africa. This thesis highlights systemic inconsistencies with regard to the central issue, namely, whether these types of clauses are valid or not, especially, given the fact that the practice of exclusionary clauses or waivers in hospital contracts has hitherto traditionally been assessed within the framework of the law of contract. The alignment of the various pre-existing areas of statutory and common law with the Constitution highlights that an inter-disciplinary and purposive approach under the value-driven Constitution, brings about a less fragmented picture in assessing the validity of these types of clauses. This approach accords with the new solicitude of the executive, the judiciary, the legislature and academia to transform the South African legal system not only in terms of procedural law but also substantive law. This has resulted in the alignment with constitutional principles and the underlying values to test the validity of these types of clauses, alternatively, contracts. Whereas pre-constitutionally the assessment of disclaimers in hospital contracts was done against the stratum of antiquated principles, namely, freedom of contract and the sanctity of contract, ignoring values such as reasonableness, fairness and conscionability, post-constitutionally, because the values that underlie the Bill of Rights and which affects all spheres of law, including the law of contract, concepts such as fairness, equity, reasonableness should weigh heavily with the decision-maker. In this regard, broader medico-legal considerations, normative medical ethics and the common law principles of good faith, fairness and reasonableness play a fundamental role in the assessment of contractual provisions, including the practice of disclaimers or exclusionary clauses in hospital contracts. This thesis critically examines how these types of clauses or contracts ought to be adjudicated eventually against the background of such alignment. It concludes that the entering into a hospital contract, in which the patient exonerates a hospital and its staff from liability flowing from the hospital or its staff's negligence causing damages to the patient, would be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. In the old order in which traditional divisions of law have been encouraged, a fragmented approach resulted in legal in congruencies which, in turn, created turbulence and a lot of uncertainty. This approach is apposite to that which the new constitutionally based legal system, aims to achieve. The rights in the Bill of Rights which are interconnected and which influences all spheres of law, including contract law, offers a fairer basis upon which, the validity of contracts, or contractual provisions, can be measured than, the pure contract approach. In this regard, although contracts or contractual provisions in the past may have been unfair and unreasonable, the courts, however, refused to strike them down purely on this basis. The law of contract, as a legal vehicle for adjudicating the validity of exclusionary clauses or waivers in hospital contracts, is therefore not ideal. This is primarily due to the antiquated approach the South African courts have always taken in this area of law. The law of delict, statutory law and medical law, standing alone, also does not provide a satisfactory answer. What is needed is an integrated approach in which the traditional areas of law are united and wherein constitutional principles and values, give much guidance and direction. Alternatively, should the unification of the traditional areas of law not be possible in bringing about fair and equitable results, the introduction of legislative measures may very well be indicated. / Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2009. / Public Law / unrestricted