Magister Legum - LLM / Members of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) are required to be dedicated to the rule of law. Yet, recent and past decision-making has caused instability in the functioning of the NPA. The decision to prosecute or not to prosecute involves the exercise of discretion. The NPAs use of this discretion has been called into question on numerous occasions which has resulted in the erosion of its independence and credibility. There are constitutional and legislative provisions in place to guide prosecutors in the decision-making process which allows for a measure of accountability. However, the link between prosecutorial independence and accountability for decision-making is not clear when looking at recent and past decisions by the National Directors of Public Prosecutions. Therefore, an evaluation of the instability in the office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions during the period of 1998-2018 will be discussed. The research discusses the unwarranted intrusion on prosecutorial decision-making. Furthermore, external interfering has resulted in the loss of public confidence in the functioning of the NPA. The administrative duties of prosecutors are guided by constitutional and legislative procedures. Hence, the research will identify whether these procedures are efficient for the effective administration of the NPA. Key to the already mentioned will be providing recommendations on how to create stability in an institution that has been surrounded by instability for the past 20 years.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:29:07Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Fernando Reverendo Vidal Akaoui.pdf: 1126301 bytes, checksum: 1b4fb12dc91399d75a2c9256389efaf0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-04-23 / The present thesis try to demonstrate on a esquematic way that the constitutionals principles and rules should be always considerad as a diffuse or collective rights or interests, while abstractively arranged on our legal system, it doesn t matter if its exercices be individualy realized. Also, that any attempt to the Federal and States Constitutions, through the edition of normative acts that with then are incompatible, traslate a true offense to those, because of its transindividual and indivible charactistics. It does the distinction between primary and secondary diffuses and collective rights and interests, where the first ones would be just those that are disposed on a abstractive way on the Federal and States Constitutions, and give the necessary support to the entire national legal system; the secondary, on a different way, are those concretely specified on the diversity of sub-constitutional normative acts, and, even though, should have a collective protection, are resulting of the solid base criated by the primary, which give then the foundation. Also tries to demonstrate, that the unique importance that envolves the concentrate control of constitutionality, which has the nature of a collective action, this roll of legitimateds still not suficient to give the necessary guaranty to our society, specialy because of the political positions that commonly are taken by those who are listed as capable to it. On our vision, the federative principle is extremely weacked by the moment that the institution which the Constitutition entrust the deffense of the legal order and the democracy it self, the Public Attorney Offices, is represented, on the concentrate constitutional control actions, only by the Chief of the Federal Public Attorney, as if he has any kind of hierarchy or ascendancy to the State Attorney General Offices. Because of that, if now a days the Governor of a State or the Representatives of the States Deputies do not process the capable actions to correct a offensive act to a constitutional right, the State Attorney General Office can t do it, just having the right to claim to the Federal Attorney General, witch can or canot embrace the thesis. It is necessary to change the Constitution, to put on the roll of legitimated to iniciate a concentrate control of constitutionality action, the States Attorneys Generals, to pay homage to the federative principle, and on respect to the States population / A presente tese procura demonstrar de forma esquemática que os princípios e regras constitucionais devem ser sempre considerados como direitos e interesses difusos e coletivos, enquanto abstratamente previstos em nosso ordenamento jurídico, ainda que o seu exercício seja realizado de forma individual. Também, que qualquer atentado às Constituições Federal e Estaduais, através da edição de atos normativos com elas incompatíveis, se traduz em verdadeira afronta àqueles, ante sua característica transindividual e indivisível. Faz-se a distinção entre direitos difusos e coletivos primários e secundários, onde estes primeiros seriam justamente aqueles que estão abstratamente dispostos nas Constituições Federal e Estaduais, e que dão o necessário amparo a todo o arcabouço jurídico pátrio; os secundários, por seu turno, são aqueles já concretamente específicos nos vários atos normativos infraconstitucionais, e que são decorrentes da base sólida criada pelos primários, que lhes dão sustento. Procura-se demonstrar, ainda, que, apesar da importância ímpar que envolve o controle concentrado de constitucionalidade, possuidor da natureza de uma verdadeira ação coletiva, o rol de legitimados ainda não é suficiente para dar a garantia necessária à sociedade, notadamente em face dos posicionamentos políticos comumente adotados pela maioria dos que ali estão consignados. Sob nossa ótica, o princípio federativo encontra-se extremamente enfraquecido a partir do momento em que a instituição a quem a Constituição incumbiu a defesa da ordem jurídica e o estado democrático de direito, qual seja, o Ministério Público, está representada, no que pertine às ações de controle concentrado de atos normativos que ofendam a Constituição Federal, apenas pelo Chefe do Ministério Público da União, como se ele tivesse algum tipo de hierarquia ou ascendência sobre os Ministérios Públicos dos Estados. Desta sorte, se hoje o Governador do Estado ou a Mesa da Assembléia Legislativa não ajuizar a medida cabível para corrigir ato lesivo a direito constitucionalmente previsto, não poderá fazê-lo o Ministério Público Estadual, somente lhe restando o direito de representar ao Procurador-Geral da República, que poderá, ou não, abraçar a tese levantada. É premente a necessidade de alteração da Constituição Federal, através de Emenda, de sorte a alargar no rol dos legitimados à propositura das ações que visem o controle concentrado de constitucionalidade, em respeito à população destes entes da Federação

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Submitted by Frederico Bendzius (fbendzius@gmail.com) on 2017-05-31T21:45:18Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_05_31 - dissertação FB.pdf: 2222607 bytes, checksum: 8a9808254ca7990b8aa9dbf966311f09 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Joana Martorini (joana.martorini@fgv.br) on 2017-06-01T11:31:00Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_05_31 - dissertação FB.pdf: 2222607 bytes, checksum: 8a9808254ca7990b8aa9dbf966311f09 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-02T13:03:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_05_31 - dissertação FB.pdf: 2222607 bytes, checksum: 8a9808254ca7990b8aa9dbf966311f09 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-04-27 / Nesta pesquisa, objetiva-se tratar da aplicação do precedente judicial nas atividades da Administração Tributária. Mais especificamente, pretende-se debater como a Procuradoria Geral do Estado de São Paulo pode orientar suas ações após a fixação de teses em precedentes. O tema é relevante em razão do princípio da isonomia tributária e para a redução da litigiosidade. Utilizei como método o exame da literatura e da legislação, além da experiência institucional da Procuradoria Geral da Fazenda Nacional. Concluí que a valoração dos precedentes deve ser incorporado ao quotidiano da Procuradoria Geral do Estado de São Paulo a fim de dar mais eficiência à sua atividade. / In this research, the objective is to deal with the application of judicial precedent in the activities of the Tax Administration. More specifically, it intends to discuss how the Attorney General's Office of the State of São Paulo can guide its actions after setting theses in precedents. The issue is relevant due to the principle of tax isonomy and to the reduction of litigation. I used as method the examination of the literature and legislation, in addition to the institutional experience of the Attorney General of the National Treasury. I concluded that the valuation of precedents should be incorporated into the daily routine of the Attorney General's Office of the State of São Paulo in order to give more efficiency to its activity.

Ce mémoire cherche à déterminer si la logique de la majorité de la Cour suprême dans l’arrêt Harper c. Canada (Procureur général) demeure valide aujourd’hui, près de deux décennies après que cet arrêt, qui avalise le régime de plafonnement des dépenses électorales des tierces parties, ait été rendu. À cette fin, le régime de plafonnement prévu par la Loi électorale du Canada est examiné en détail, de même que les motifs de la majorité. Ces préliminaires achevés, le cœur de l’analyse est entamé. Trois phénomènes sont étudiés pour déterminer si le raisonnement de la majorité dans Harper doit être remis ou non en question : l’avènement d’une dynamique de « campagne permanente », la monté des technologies de l’information et le déclin des partis politiques. Il est conclu que la logique déployée dans l’arrêt Harper demeure valide, mais qu’elle appelle certains changements à la Loi électorale actuelle. À cet effet, les plafonds préélectoraux des tiers devraient être éliminés et l’usage de sites internet personnels ou de compte de médias sociaux devrait être assujetti à un régime de plafonnement. / This work seeks to determine whether the reasoning of the Supreme Court majority in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), which validates third parties’ spending limits during the election period,still avails almost two decades after being rendered. The limits on third parties' spending as established by the Canada Election Act are examined in detail. The majority’s reasons are also discussed at length. Then, the core analysis begins. Three new social phenomena are examined to determine whether the Court’s reasoning in Harper should be called into question. These phenomena are: the advent of a “permanent campaign” in Canada, the rise of new information technologies and the decline of political parties. It is concluded that Harper’s logic remains highly compelling, though it may entail some modifications to the current electoral law, such as the abolition of pre-electoral spending limits and the application of some form of limitation to electoral spending regarding personal web sites and social media account.