Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:26:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 angelo.pdf: 652087 bytes, checksum: d411e93e2b6a5d213a18bbc9fdd28bf3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-11-23 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The phenomenon of the constitucionalization of the right and, mainly, the internationalization of the constitucional law, have demonstrated the necessity of a careful observance in the materiality of the rules of law. This analysis becomes essential in face from that, recognizing determined norm as constitutional, it will have to be excused, the imperatividade of the constitutional normative force, as product of the principle of the constitutional supremacy, the constitutional rigidity, and will serve, also, of paradigm for the constitutionality control. The recognition of the constitutional character of determined norms is of the constitutional document, attributes denomination to it of Block of Constitutionality. This scene has produced reflected in the Brazilian legal system, especially, in the protection of the basic rights, through the Constitutional Emendation nº 45 of 2004. However, part of the doctrine, in this includes our positioning, already it recognized that the Brazilian constitutional system, electing for a systematic and teleologic interpretation of its norms, prescribed since the promulgation of the Constitution of 1988 for the distant identification of constitutional ruleses of the constitutional text, with beddings in § 2º, of art. 5º, as well as in the implicit principles constitutional. Of this form, as the constitutional ruleses are identified from its materiality or constitutional formality, in the Brazilian constitutional system the admission of the constitutionality block finish for becoming undeniable, but some consequences happen of this observation. Of any form, the Brazilian jurisprudence meets in constant expansion allowing to interprets it to always protect the constitutional identity and the prevalence of the basic rights / O fenômeno da constitucionalização do direito e, principalmente, a internacionalização do direito constitucional, tem demonstrado a necessidade de uma observância cuidadosa na materialidade das normas jurídicas. Essa análise torna-se imprescindível em face de que, reconhecendo determinada norma como constitucional, deverá ser dispensada a ela, a imperatividade da força normativa constitucional, como produto do princípio da supremacia constitucional, da rigidez constitucional, e servirá, inclusive, de paradigma para o controle de constitucionalidade. O reconhecimento do caráter constitucional de determinadas normas fora do documento constitucional, atribui-se a denominação de Bloco de Constitucionalidade. Esse cenário tem produzido reflexos no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, especialmente, na proteção dos direitos fundamentais, através da Emenda Constitucional nº 45 de 2004. Entretanto, parte da doutrina, neste inclui o nosso posicionamento, já reconhecia que o sistema constitucional brasileiro, primando por uma interpretação sistêmica e teleológica de suas normas, prescrevia desde a promulgação da Constituição de 1988 pela identificação de normas constitucionais distante do texto constitucional, com fundamentos no § 2º, do art. 5º, bem como nos princípios constitucionais implícitos. Dessa forma, como as normas constitucionais são identificadas a partir da sua materialidade ou formalidade constitucional, no sistema constitucional brasileiro a admissão do bloco de constitucionalidade acaba por tornar-se inegável, mas algumas conseqüências advêm dessa constatação. De qualquer forma, a ordem jurídica brasileira encontra-se em expansão constante permitindo ao interprete proteger sempre a identidade constitucional e a prevalência dos direitos fundamentais

Dans un contexte politique, économique et culturel différent, la justice constitutionnelle se développe en Égypte et en France. D’un point de vue purement juridique, le contrôle de constitutionnalité des lois s’exerce dans les deux pays selon une procédure différente. Le développement du contrôle de constitutionnalité des lois dans les deux pays avait, toutefois, pour effet de reproduire progressivement des rapprochements quant au contrôle de constitutionnalité des lois. L’Égypte établit en 2005 un mécanisme a priori sur la constitutionnalité des certaines catégories des lois électorales. De son côté, la France finit en 2008 par inaugurer un mécanisme du contrôle a posteriori (la QPC). Cette thèse propose de montrer que la justice constitutionnelle dans les deux pays s’appuie sur les mêmes fondements, tant sur un plan matériel que formel. Le contrôle exercé par la Cour constitutionnelle dans chacun des deux pays peut être considéré comme une application du modèle européen de justice constitutionnelle adaptée aux différentes données politiques, juridiques, économiques et culturelles de chacun de deux pays. / In the political, economic, and cultural status quo, constitutional justice has been developed in both Egypt and France. From the legal perspective, it has been realized that various difference between both countries within the mechanism of the constitutional review of laws. Recently, the development of this legal issue in both countries leads to some of similarities between the mechanism in both Egypt and France, especially on the procedural level. Egypt adopted the same French scheme in 2005 with respect to some of the election laws. Further, France adopted the same constitutional review as Egypt via subordinate claim in 2008. But that does not mean that the constitutional review in both countries include only the procedural levels but also the main principle of the legal constitutional reviews in Egypt and France