本論文論述公正程序請求權在民事證據法上各主要議題之作用，重點論之如下： 「公正程序請求權理念之建立」，係為探討公正程序請求權之內涵與意義，以鋪陳應用該概念於與民事證據法關係密切之證據調查、事實認定過程之基礎。藉由歐洲人權法院相關判決，以印證歐盟司法機關對公正程序請求權在基本人權脈絡下之意涵及其在實際個案之解釋適用。另亦探討法律安定性與公正程序請求權之關係。因以公正程序請求權為前導法理所指向之程序內涵之一為實質公平正義的追求。建基於此目標，為使程序法注入新理論概念而與憲法層次之價值觀相連接，因此在立法論指向積極擴大「不確定法律概念」的立法應用，使司法裁量(Ermesson)於民事證據法的解釋、適用判斷空間於焉擴張，若對不確定法律概念的規範特質、規範目的不予釐清，而汎用於事實認定與證據調查程序中，同時司法裁量的運作空間在解釋論上，其寬窄勢必增加法官就其裁量判斷對當事人發生「突襲性裁判」之機會。以此對照同為法治國原則所衍生之法律安定性、法律明確性原則等之內在限制要求，不確定法律概念之指涉範圍則與之形成對立緊張關係。不確定法律概念是否應予限定，又如何與審判實務相銜接，其如何在「法官恣意禁止原則」下踐行，實值評估。值注意者為德國法學者關於法治國原則之正當程序及不確定法律概念之討論，其解釋論取向實值深思。 關於舉證責任之分配，我國新修正民事訴訟法第二百七十七條規定：「當事人主張有利於己之事實，就其事實有舉證之責任。但法律別有規定，或依其情形顯失公平者，不在此限。」本條規定為德、日所無，而係我國所獨創。針對此舉證責任所設之通則規定，於審判實務上以公正程序保障之觀點以言，是否能臻至法律明確性之要求，而具體落實為操作性規則(Operations Regeln)，實不無疑義。如何於訴訟階段運用該條規定以合理分配敗訴之風險，以及建立一明確而穩固之舉證責任分配原則乃直接衝擊當事人訴訟勝敗，在「原則-例外」脈絡下，如何保障當事人公正程序請求權，防免法律突襲，實有賴舉證責任分配一般原則之確立。另蒐集美國判決以觀察common law之舉証責任分配其原則是否以衡平原則為依據。此外，闡明權行使在實質上賦予法官介入個案調整紛爭當事人訴訟程序相對地位之職權。惟由於程序安定性之要求既在保護人民對於訴訟程序之信賴，如何保護實體權利、實現正義，均應依正當程序解決兩造糾紛始有可能為當事人及利害關係人等所信服，則闡明權如何平衡兼顧兩造利益，以維法官之中立；對以法尋求說做為程序目的論者而言，又如何平衡兼顧實體利益與程序利益，實值探討。而藉由對於闡明權行使之分析，以理解其為何引起法律適用的困難，以致於在司法審查密度、心證公開的決定上會成為一個有意義的問題。為促進訴訟，更進一步是否應將事案解明義務一般化?又如何於訴訟階段以一般化事案解明義務為基礎，使當事人盡力於證據之提出及其可期待性? 於充分賦予當事人公正程序保障之前提下，如何使當事人之證據提出責任具體化，為所關心之課題。 舉證責任減輕之體系定位之釐清將有助於解析整個事實認定之過程，在「原則-例外」基本原理的體系脈絡下，為達公正程序請求權所保障之實質公平，構成舉證責任減輕之事件類型，正當性及所採取之種類方式，其法理基礎均為關切之重點。現代科技文明，非但對自然生活環境帶來一定衝擊，更直接影響現代型紛爭、訴訟之蓬勃發展。文獻上對以公害、醫療、交通、產品責任等現代型訴訟為例，已累積相當成果。對受害人因欠缺得與財團企業、專門職業從業者相抗衡之專業知識與經濟實力，若需就其行為與「損害」間之因果關係負擔客觀舉証責任，實近於緣木求魚。則於訴訟法上應如何透過舉證責任減輕以減輕訴訟中弱勢原告之証明負擔，調整雙方不對等之訴訟地位以落實訴訟法上之「武器平等原則」，及損害賠償數額確定之舉證責減輕，究是否等同於衡平裁判之問題，實極有討論價值。另論述美國學者John Rawls提出之正義論做為平等原則在證據法操作性規則之可能性，及德國學者Prütting對勞動法證明責任之見解，對於經濟上弱勢地位之勞工與資本家間勞資爭議事件之探討深具啟發性。 「證據蒐集與事實認定之公正程序保障」，探討關於證據資料蒐集及各種證據方法之提出，在證據調查程序上各有何特性，又應如何保障公正程序之審理過程。訴訟對立之兩造，其實體利益及程序利益之消長在事實認定、證據價值判斷上決定勝敗，依此觀點下兩造之利害關係成為零合賽局，而非相互協助合作。證據蒐集方法中文書提出義務、協力義務等主張亦處於類似之狀況，則其以公正程序觀點檢視其範圍、正當性與界限，實有必要。 違法取得證據資料之證據能力部份，討論因科技發展帶動新穎證據方法之出現，使證據資料之取得來源益趨多元，如何決定新穎科學證據所應採之正當調查程序，對於我國社會徵信公司、討債公司林立之現況，自有其實證研究價值。就民事程序中負舉證責任人或第三人之違法取得證據，例如以電話竊聽，私下錄音或其他文件之竊取、未經同意之照片拍攝錄影、潛入工廠生產線以取得證據資料證明製程專利侵權等，產生追求真實之訴訟目的觀與程序或實體法規範衝突之情形，尚且擴及憲法之價值確立與衝突之問題。依正當程序及其他憲法原則之審判應如何合宜審度裁酌方得認定證據資料之證據能力，又如何忠實反映該新種證據方法所表彰之證據價值等，甚值注目。申言之，取得證據資料與其他基本權，如隱私權、人性尊嚴、人格權、財產權、自由權等價值之相互間對抗與衡量。 對於證據蒐集，一般認為，大陸法系與英美法系在證據蒐集程序上相異處之一在於摸索證明之原則准否。而評估我國是否容許類似英美法系之事證開示制度(Discovery or Disclosure)，學者間爭議頗多。而在德國，學說及實務上有以辯論主義作為承認摸索證明禁止原則之理論依據者，而通說亦向來將摸索證明之許可性討論置於適用辯論主義之程序中為之。以程序制度之原則一貫性而言，是否應原則禁止，例外准許。而可能例外准許類型之範圍及考量因素為何，其程序態樣，及其法理基礎為觀察重點。摸索證明是否應與准許，對訴訟對立之兩造，影響至巨，而有與公正程序所要求之當事人具體化義務，證據聲明明確性等標準相衝突之虞。證據評價為另一論述重點，所蒐集之證據在自由心証下如何為證據評價本文襲承證據法學說對證明度等基礎概念之討論，說明關於何種證據方法、證據資料得成為法院事實認定之素材，即具證據能力及經嚴格證明，而對於解明事實而言又有多大助益（亦即證據價值）證據相關性(或關連性)問題與證明預斷之禁止原則等，凡此種種議題因均與法院認定事實之過程息息相關，誠有檢討實益與必要。 擬制自認與失權制度之公正程序保障部份，鑑於訴訟制度為一集團現象，司法資源有限，課紛爭當事人以訴訟促進義務，以達防止訴訟延滯、簡化爭點、審理集中化之目標，並賦予違反此義務者以失權之法律效果，對程序利益保護雖為一有效手段；然因其剝奪當事人進行攻擊防禦之機會，認定事實之基礎並非在於當事人積極而經自由意志判斷之訴訟行為，則在如何之法理支持下，乃能正當化此強制處分對擬制自認、遲延提出攻擊防禦方法之失權與其他程序上異議(責問)失權等所造成當事人程序及實體權利不利益之科處，實值深究。在審判實務上，對於擬制自認之運用，解釋適用之疑難。例如，對於所謂「不爭執」之定義、及擬制自認之效力等基本問題之疑義、沉默的證據力等為其著例。在證據調查或準備程序之爭點整理階段，公正程序權利如何保障以無悖於法治國之憲法原則，為著力關切點。

Abstract  This thesis is concerned with examining the intersection between the areas of international commercial arbitration and money laundering. There are various points of connectivity between the two and the aim of this thesis is to discern how an arbitrator should conduct arbitral proceedings involving money laundering. For this purpose, a few selected topics have been examined. The practical challenges arising out of these topics, as well as the tools available to arbitrators to face them have been analysed in turn. After a brief inquiry into the nature of international commercial arbitration, money laundering and the ways that they come together, the topics of jurisdiction, the norms applicable to the substance of the dispute, and matters of evidence are subject to discussion. In studying these topics, a recurring theme, which goes to the very heart of the intersection between the seemingly odd areas of international commercial arbitration and money laundering, is discernible. In practically all of the challenges that an arbitrator will face when adjudicating a dispute involving money laundering a conflict of interest between the pivotal principle of party autonomy and other interests will arise. These interests originate from the public policy concerns vested in countering money laundering and the criminal law nature of this phenomenon. The tools which the arbitrator deem to be applicable as well as the conduct that he might choose in regards to the topics discussed, very much depend on his perception of the role that international arbitrators ought to assume in this conflict. Keeping these conceptual building blocks in mind the author, whilst examining the relevant legal instrument, case law and legal commentary, reaches the conclusion that arbitral tribunals ought to claim jurisdiction over disputes arising out of contracts tainted by money laundering in the majority of cases. The author also reaches the conclusion that there are other norms than the lex contractus that can be applied to the substance of the dispute and that the willingness to apply them will depend on the attitude of the arbitrator. Similarly, the arbitrator could, and arguably should, investigate the issue of money laundering of his own accord, albeit with a few important reservations. The rules of evidence, especially those of the burden of proof and standard of proof, should be tailored to reflect the nature of the complex offence of money laundering. Finally, the eventual possibility for an international arbitrator to report suspicions of money laundering is touched upon.

O presente estudo, partindo da premissa de que o processo, assim, como o próprio direito, sofre intensa influência dos valores sociais e das determinantes históricas, políticas e culturais da sociedade em que se insere, tem por escopo analisar a influência das concepções instrumentalista e publicista, do robustecimento de seu conteúdo ético e das demais premissas metodológicas do processo civil atual, na denominada divisão de trabalho entre juiz e das partes em todo o iter procedimental, e, notadamente, na atividade probatória, de sorte a reconhecer, com fundamento no modelo constitucional do processo civil brasileiro, a existência de autênticos deveres das partes e do juiz em matéria de prova e analisar as consequências jurídicas de sua inobservância. / This study, working on the premise that procedural law, as well as law itself, suffers intense influence of social values and societys historical, political and cultural determinants in which it operates, has the scope of analyzing the influence of the instrumentalist and publicist conceptions, the toughening of its ethical content and other methodological premises of the current civil procedure in the denominated division of labor between judge and parties throughout the procedural path, and notably in the evidentiary activity, so as to recognize, based on the constitutional model of the Brazilian civil procedure, the existence of genuine obligations of the parties and the judge regarding evidentiary matter and analyze the legal consequences of their noncompliance.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:21:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Denise Ferragi Hungria.pdf: 483141 bytes, checksum: 1268c1617ae10b970e9ac89319482782 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-11-23 / This Master of Laws dissertation intend to present the practical side of the actual application of the lent evidence in the civil procedure, however is not included in our Code of Civil Procedure, has a widespread use in our legal system. The fundamental objective was to extract from the theoretical and abstract concepts the possibility to use in forensic practice the institute able to facilitate the law operator in searching of a effective protection, and of judicial economy and procedural celerity, mainly due to the constant pursuit of equity. We believe that we are positively contributing for the development of procedural laws, specially in the application of lent evidence in the brazilian legal system. On the other hand, search is also pointing out that because of the recent reforms of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is necessary to revisit the topic (lent evidence) to better fit it in the current dynamics of the Brazilian Civil Procedure, so that to avoid repetitive proofs unnecessary and contributes to the speed and procedural economy / A presente dissertação de mestrado pretende apresentar a faceta da atual aplicação da prova emprestada no processo civil, que embora não tipificada em nosso Código de Processo Civil, possui vasta utilização em nosso ordenamento jurídico. O objetivo fundamental foi extrair dos conceitos teóricos e abstratos a possibilidade de se utilizar na prática forense um instituto capaz de facilitar o operador do Direito, em busca da tutela efetiva, da economia e da celeridade processual, sobretudo em função da busca constante pela equidade. Acreditamos estar, assim, contribuindo positivamente para o aprimoramento e avanço do direito processual, em especial na aplicação da prova emprestada. Busca-se, por outro lado, também ressaltar, que em função das recentes reformas do Código de Processo Civil, faz-se necessária a revisitação do tema (prova emprestada) para melhor enquadrálo na atual dinâmica do processo civil brasileiro, na medida em que evitar provas repetitivas e desnecessárias contribui para a celeridade e a economia processuais

隨著社會變遷，近一二十年來，我國醫療糾紛有大幅增加之現象，而經由媒體的報導，醫療糾紛在我國亦經常成為眾所矚目、備受爭議的社會焦點。由於醫療行為所導致的損害，直接侵害病人之身體權、健康權、甚至生命權，對於病人及其家屬生活所造成之影響，難謂非為鉅大，故醫療糾紛之妥善處理，實係吾人從事醫療法律之研究者，應予正視並深入探討之議題。 我國醫療糾紛之處理，向以刑事訴訟為主要之救濟途徑，惟晚近醫界、法界均已達成共識，認為醫療糾紛應回歸至以民事程序為主之處理模式。惟吾人若欲藉由民事法律關係妥善處理醫療糾紛，則須注意醫療民事訴訟之特殊性，亦即，因醫病雙方專業知識上之落差，導致雙方在民事程序上處於武器不平等之地位。為衡平此一武器不平等，我國實務上部分法官在審理醫療民事訴訟時，曾打破傳統民事過失歸責原則，將消費者保護法無過失責任與民法第191條之3一般危險責任之規定適用於醫療行為，惟自民國93年醫療法第82條第2項修正之後，該法既規定「醫療機構及其醫事人員因執行業務致生損害於病人，以故意或過失為限，負損害賠償責任。」邇近之實務判決遂多採醫療行為過失責任之見解，也多排除民法第191條之3之適用。我國醫療訴訟醫病爭執之重點，乃於近年由實體法之無過失責任之採擇與否，轉換至程序法之舉證責任分配。 於醫療訴訟等現代型訴訟事件中，被害人時常發生舉證上之困難，倘若依照僵化固定的舉證責任分配規則，則不免有失公平正義。因此，舉證責任分配於醫療訴訟上應如何操作方屬適當，實為醫療民事訴訟中值得觀察的重點所在。基於上述之問題意識，本論文的研究架構共分為七章，其內容綱要如下： 第一章 緒論：闡釋說明研究動機，並指明目前民事醫療糾紛事件之問題重心在於「程序法」，特別係在「舉證責任之分配」。進而說明本論文之研究動機、研究目的、研究範圍與研究方法。 第二章 醫療糾紛之發生及其處理：本章由醫療糾紛之發生談起，進而說明醫療糾紛之法律關係，探討不同法領域下醫療提供者違反義務時之法律責任，包括民事責任、刑事責任及行政責任等，並論證醫療糾紛實應回歸至以民事程序為主之處理模式。最後，介紹醫療糾紛發生後，國內外現今法制上之醫療糾紛處理機制，並分析其優缺點。 第三章 醫療糾紛之民事法律關係與醫療民事訴訟之特殊性：本章聚焦於醫療糾紛之民事法律關係，探討醫療提供者之契約責任、醫療無因管理與醫療提供者之侵權責任等。同時，討論醫療民事訴訟之特殊性，分析醫療民事訴訟被害人舉證困難之原因，並分析加重醫療提供者民事責任之法理基礎、以及過度加重醫療提供者民事責任所可能導致之反效果。 第四章 民事訴訟舉證責任分配之學說：按我國關於民事舉證責任之立法明文，係規定於民事訴訟法第277條：「當事人主張有利於己之事實者，就其事實有舉證之責任。但法律別有規定，或依其情形顯失公平者，不在此限。」學者乃認為，在我國法制下，所謂舉證責任分配法則係一總體概念，而可區分為「舉證責任分配一般原則」與「舉證責任分配減輕」二者，而以前者為原則，後者為例外。本章即由舉證責任之基礎觀念出發，藉由介紹國內外之學說，而分別處理「舉證責任分配之一般原則」與「舉證責任分配之減輕」等概念。 第五章 醫療民事訴訟舉證責任分配規則之具體適用：本章集中討論醫療民事訴訟之舉證責任。本章前半段介紹醫療民事訴訟舉證責任分配之一般規則、以及比較法上(包括德國、美國與日本)醫療糾紛舉證責任減輕之具體規則，後半段則分析我國實務操作醫療糾紛舉證責任分配之問題。本文一共歸納出實務判決於適用舉證責任分配時共六個問題，並分別找出判決加以闡釋。於本章末，則提出將醫療糾紛類型化，應有助於解決我國實務之問題。 第六章 醫療糾紛之類型化與舉證責任分配體系之建構：本章先試從「法學思維」、「醫學思維」、以及「綜合醫學思維與法學思維」出發，分別建立三套操作模組，以將醫療糾紛類型化，並建構其各別之舉證責任分配體系。關於純粹由「法學思維」或「醫學思維」所建立之操作模組，本文將分析其操作上之侷限，而針對本文所建議「綜合醫學思維與法學思維」之操作模組，亦將於各醫療糾紛分類，舉實務案例諸例實際操作之，以驗證本文所建議操作流程之可行性。章末則另提出法院於適用舉證責任分配規則時，其他與客觀舉證責任分配無直接相關，但應予考量之事項，以助於更正確地適用舉證責任分配規則。 第七章 結論、建議與展望：綜合前開章節討論，針對醫療民事爭訟程序中之舉證責任分類體系與操作模式，做出總結。並提出其他相關建議，以終極落實醫療需求者憲法上基本權之保障。 / The number of malpractice claims filed in Taiwan against physicians has increased significantly in the recent decades. Medical malpractice litigations are characterized by a huge gap in medical knowledge between physicians and patients, leading to an unequal status between both parties in the trials. To ensure that the principle of equality of arms is upheld in civil procedures, the courts applied the strict liability embodied in Article 7 of the Consumer Protection Law and Article 191-3 of the Civil Code to malpractice cases. However, since the amendment and promulgation of Article 82 of the Medical Care Act, there has been a consensus that strict liability is no longer applicable in medical litigations, and negligence becomes an essential element for establishing the liability of medical practitioners. In addition to modifying liability rules, an alternative for achieving equality of arms is to relieve the plaintiffs from the burden of proof. However, the burden of proof should be adjusted with precaution, because an excessive shift might contribute to defensive medicine. Accordingly, this study aims to standardize the algorithm for allocating the burden of proof by classifying medical malpractice disputes. The thesis is composed of the following seven chapters: Chapter 1 Introduction: This chapter outlines the background of the present study, with a special emphasis on the pivotal role of the burden of proof in medical litigations. Also delineated in this chapter are the objectives and methodology of the present study. Chapter 2 The occurrence and resolution of medical malpractice disputes: In this chapter, the incidence of medical injury and medical malpractice is discussed first, followed by an analysis of the civil, criminal, and administrative liabilities of medical professionals. The plethora of resolutions for settling medical malpractice disputes are summarized at the end of the chapter. Chapter 3 Civil liabilities of medical malpractice and characteristics of medical litigations: This chapter focuses on the civil liabilities of medical malpractice, which arise from failure to undertake contractual duties or tort liabilities. The characteristics of medical litigations, such as the unequal status in arms between plaintiffs and defendants and the difficulties in concluding negligence or deciphering causation, are discussed in the second half of the chapter. Chapter 4 Theories and rules in allocating the burden of proof: The allocation of the burden of proof is determined according to Article 277 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure: A party bears the burden of proof with regard to the facts which he/she alleges in his/her favor, except either where the law provides otherwise or where the circumstances render it manifestly unfair. Consequently, in principle, the burden of proof is allocated according to the “Normentheorie,” with specific rules applied to ease the plaintiff’s burden of proof under exceptional and unfair circumstances. Chapter 5 Rules for allocating the burden of proof in medical litigations: German, American, and Japanese rules for allocating or relieving plaintiffs from the burden of proof in medical litigations are introduced. The current problems in applying these rules to medical litigations in Taiwan are inspected. The solution to these problems relies on a precise classification of medical malpractice disputes. Chapter 6 Establishing the algorithm for allocating the burden of proof by classifying medical malpractice disputes: Three models for allocating the burden of proof are created on the basis of three classification systems: classification from a legal perspective, classification from a medical perspective, and classification from a combined medical-and-legal perspective. A comparison of these three models reveals that the last might be the best algorithm. Specific tips for an accurate application of this algorithm are also provided. Chapter 7 Conclusions: This chapter highlights the importance of an appropriate allocation of the burden of proof in medical litigations, as well as the algorithm for allocating the burden of proof established in the present study. Also included are suggestions on how to ameliorate Taiwan’s medical litigation system in the future.

Thesis (MComm)--University of Stellenbosch, 2005. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The new set of employment equity laws call for South African organisations to justify their compensations systems. During compensation discrimination litigation, evidence is required to support arguments put before the court in order to meet the burden of proof. The similarity between foreign and domestic legal systems, suggests that the operational implications of foreign legislation will also be relevant to South Africa. This raises the debate as to the nature of fairness in the compensation context, the debate of comparable worth and the use of multiple regression analysis. The organisation must present to the court evidence to show that the choice of compensable constructs, their measurement and application does not discrimination directly or indirectly based on group membership. Multiple regression analysis, a statistical method to model the compensation system, is fraught with difficulties and misunderstanding. It is nevertheless the most appropriate method to investigate compensation fairness. Comparable worth and multiple regression analysis require assessment in the South African context. The issues, which hindered the successful use of multiple regression analysis abroad, are reviewed in order to smooth its entry into South African litigation. A framework is presented based on literature and case law whereby all parties concerned can produce and evaluate such evidence / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die nuwe Anti-Diskrimineringswetgewing verlang van Suid-Afrikaanse organisasies om salarisstelsels te regverdig. Gedurende salarisdiskriminasielitigasie word bewys verlang om die bewyslas oor te dra. Die gelyksoortigheid van buitelandse en binnelandse regstelsels gee te kenne dat die operatiewe implikasies van buitelandse wetgewing relevant tot Suid-Afrika sal wees. Dit bevraagteken die aard van billikheid in die kompensasie konteks, die debat van vergelykbare waarde en die gebruik van veelvoudige regressieontleding. Die betrokke party moet bewys aan die hof toon om te bevestig dat die keuse van vergoedingskonstruksie, sowel as die meting en toepassing daarvan, nie onregverdig diskrimineer, ten opsigte van demografiese groepe me. Veelvoudige regressieontleding 'n statistiese metode wat gebriuk kan word om die salarissisteem voor te stel. Alhoewel dit vele onduidelikhede bevat, is dit steeds die mees toepaslike metode om salarisbillikheid te ondersoek. Vergelykbare waarde en meervoudige regressieontleding is in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks geëvalueer. Die aspekte wat die sukses van die gebruik van meervoudige regressieontleding in ander lande verhinder het, is ondersoek en geëvalueer om die toekomstige toepassing daarvan in Suid-Afrika te vergemaklik. 'n Raamwerk gebaseer op literatuur en gevalle studies word voorgestel, waar al die betrokke partye sodanige bewys kan produseer en evalueer.

Submitted by Jose Carlos da Matta Berardo (jcberardo@gmail.com) on 2018-03-16T17:07:50Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Berardo - O Tema da Prova (final).pdf: 924778 bytes, checksum: a05fd364dad5c05497eb5e6a4c55089f (MD5) / Rejected by Thais Oliveira (thais.oliveira@fgv.br), reason: Prezado José, boa tarde! Para que possamos aprovar, é necessário que inclua a Banca Examinadora completa. Por gentileza acrescentar os Professores "Leonor Augusta Giovine Cordovil" e " Vinícius Marques de Carvalho". Qualquer dúvida, entre em contato. Atenciosamente. on 2018-03-16T17:56:51Z (GMT) / Submitted by Jose Carlos da Matta Berardo (jcberardo@gmail.com) on 2018-03-16T18:03:52Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Berardo - O Tema da Prova (final).pdf: 924778 bytes, checksum: a05fd364dad5c05497eb5e6a4c55089f (MD5) / Rejected by Thais Oliveira (thais.oliveira@fgv.br), reason: Prezado José Carlos, boa tarde. Conforme e-mail anterior, é necessário que ACRESCENTE na página da Banca Examinadora todos os professores que participaram da Dissertação. Atenciosamente. on 2018-03-16T18:08:01Z (GMT) / Submitted by Jose Carlos da Matta Berardo (jcberardo@gmail.com) on 2018-03-16T18:11:35Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Berardo - O Tema da Prova (final).pdf: 920491 bytes, checksum: 47c25d90e77571deb69e5d4661cf8ab2 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Thais Oliveira (thais.oliveira@fgv.br) on 2018-03-16T18:13:56Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Berardo - O Tema da Prova (final).pdf: 920491 bytes, checksum: 47c25d90e77571deb69e5d4661cf8ab2 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Isabele Garcia (isabele.garcia@fgv.br) on 2018-03-16T20:46:29Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Berardo - O Tema da Prova (final).pdf: 920491 bytes, checksum: 47c25d90e77571deb69e5d4661cf8ab2 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-16T20:46:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Berardo - O Tema da Prova (final).pdf: 920491 bytes, checksum: 47c25d90e77571deb69e5d4661cf8ab2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-09-17 / Este trabalho quer apresentar a discussão referente ao tema da prova na análise das concentrações empresariais pelo Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE) no âmbito da Lei n. 12.529/2011, notadamente diante da constatação de que tal análise, necessariamente prognóstica, se dá sob fortes condições de incerteza quanto à conformação e à dinâmica dos mercados após a consumação do ato de concentração. A discussão justifica-se para assegurar a aplicação isonômica da Lei por parte da autoridade, em um contexto em que há prognoses concorrentes a respeito de tal conformação de mercado, cabendo ao CADE fazer uma ponderação de probabilidade, verossimilhança ou plausibilidade a respeito dessas prognoses, a partir de informações apresentadas pelas empresas interessadas na consumação de uma concentração e obtidas junto a outros agentes do mercado, como concorrentes, clientes e fornecedores. Após contextualizar criticamente o quadro normativo aplicável à matéria, inclusive no que toca ao tema da incerteza, e apresentar a metodologia tradicional de análise dos chamados “atos de concentração”, cristalizada no Guia para Análise de Atos de Concentração Horizontal, editado pelas autoridades de defesa da concorrência, à luz de sua fundamentação perante a teoria econômica, o estudo examina os antecedentes históricos da matéria probatória no âmbito das concentrações no Direito Comparado, para então delimitar as discussões, no Direito Brasileiro, sobre o ônus da prova, standard probatório e os meios de prova disponíveis no âmbito do exame das concentrações no Brasil. O capítulo final conclui com recomendações voltadas ao tratamento prático do tema, considerando as especificidades apontadas ao longo do estudo. / The work aims to present the discussion regarding the theme of evidence in the review of corporate concentrations by the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) pursuant to Law no. 12,529/2011, especially in view of the conclusion that this review, necessarily forward-looking, is conducted under strong uncertainty as to market conformation and dynamics following consummation of the merger. The debate is required to assure equal enforcement of the Law by the authority, in a context in which there are competing prognoses about these market conformation, resting upon the CADE to assess the probabilities, likelihoods or plausibility of those prognoses, based upon information submitted by the merging parties and obtained from other market agents, such as competitors, clients and suppliers. After critically contextualizing the normative frame applicable to the subject, including the topic of uncertainty, and presenting the traditional methodology for the analysis of merger cases, in the form of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines edited by the competition authorities, the study reviews the history of the antecedents of the discussions about evidence in the context of merger control in Comparative Law, so it can then delineate the debate, under Brazilian Law, about the burden of proof, standard of proof and means of proof available in merger control review in Brazil. The final chapter concludes with recommendations regarding practical aspects of the matter, considering the particularities identified throughout the analysis.

The study aims to review the regulatory powers exercised by the South African Revenue Services (SARS) with regard to the issuing, decline or revocation of a taxpayer’s tax clearance certificate, to highlight any remedial measures and procedures available to the aggrieved taxpayer in order to protect the right of taxpayers to fair administrative action in their dealings with SARS. Previously, a tax clearance certificate was not issued in terms of any statute or provision of any Tax Act. However, since the introduction of the Tax Administration Act, as amended (TAA), the issuing of the tax clearance certificates are more efficiently regulated. The issuing of tax clearance certificate’s must conform to the values and principles prescribed for under current legislation, and more particularly, as espoused under the Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution). However, it has been reported some taxpayer were experiencing unreasonable and incomprehensible delays in obtaining responses to the objections lodged with SARS for assessment. Taxpayers seeking resolution of their disputes with SARS, currently opt to incur litigation costs in order to obtain appropriate relief from the High Courts. Taxpayers must take note that there is nothing in Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) or the common law, which empowers a Court to order an administrator to take action, including the making of a decision which the administrator is not lawfully allowed to make. The study highlights remedial measures and procedures available to the aggrieved taxpayer to prevent the misapplication of fiscal power by SARS in the issuing of the taxpayer’s compliance status, thus protecting the right to fair administrative action in their dealings with SARS. Taxpayers who are aggrieved by a decision taken by the Revenue Authority are encouraged to timeously address their grievances, commencing with the internal dispute resolution remedies provided for within the TAA. / Financial Accounting / M. Compt. (Accounting Sciences)

O presente estudo, partindo da premissa de que o processo, assim, como o próprio direito, sofre intensa influência dos valores sociais e das determinantes históricas, políticas e culturais da sociedade em que se insere, tem por escopo analisar a influência das concepções instrumentalista e publicista, do robustecimento de seu conteúdo ético e das demais premissas metodológicas do processo civil atual, na denominada divisão de trabalho entre juiz e das partes em todo o iter procedimental, e, notadamente, na atividade probatória, de sorte a reconhecer, com fundamento no modelo constitucional do processo civil brasileiro, a existência de autênticos deveres das partes e do juiz em matéria de prova e analisar as consequências jurídicas de sua inobservância. / This study, working on the premise that procedural law, as well as law itself, suffers intense influence of social values and societys historical, political and cultural determinants in which it operates, has the scope of analyzing the influence of the instrumentalist and publicist conceptions, the toughening of its ethical content and other methodological premises of the current civil procedure in the denominated division of labor between judge and parties throughout the procedural path, and notably in the evidentiary activity, so as to recognize, based on the constitutional model of the Brazilian civil procedure, the existence of genuine obligations of the parties and the judge regarding evidentiary matter and analyze the legal consequences of their noncompliance.

本研究以「我國司法判決之敘事分析初探―目標可贖回遠期契約(TRF)爭議為例」，聚焦於法庭活動之司法敘事，透過對民事判決書之文本分析，探討原告及被告如何就爭議事件進行對己有利之敘事策略與方式，以及法官如何於判決書中就其認定之法律事實與因果推論撰寫判決。 本研究發現，基於「舉證責任分配原則」及「訴訟書狀撰寫規定」，原告、被告及法官之司法敘事應可區分為「故事」及「論述」二者。其中常見「夾敘夾議」文體，係為認定「法律事實」所作之論述，但常忽略提出具有連貫性且符合邏輯推論之法律事實。 而當法律爭訟發生時，雙方當事人需將自己認定之事實分以「故事」及「論述」讓法官有興趣聽、聽得懂並相信所說為實，如此才能贏得訴訟。因而「敘事」對當事人之攻防與判決書的事實建構益顯重要，司法敘事策略與方式及其意義與價值於焉產生。 / The purpose of this study is to conduct an exploratory analysis on the narratives in Taiwan’s judicial judgments by using examples of dispute cases on Target Redemption Forwards (TRF). Analyses are conducted on texts of civil judgments in order to understand how plaintiffs and defendants respectively develop their strategies and methodologies of narratives for winning cases, and how judges narrate the legal facts that they affirm as causes and consequences in their verdicts. It was discovered in the study that, based on the "principles of distribution of the burden of proof" and the "regulations on the drafting of litigation pleadings," judicial narratives made by plaintiffs, defendants and judges can be classified into two parts, namely "story" and "discourse." A frequently used form of writing, "narration interspersed with comments," is normally made for the purpose to affirm "legal facts." When a legal dispute takes place, the parties concerned are required to provide narratives (stories and discourses) in the court, including interpretation of the facts that they affirm by using relevant evidences. In order to win the case, however, the narrator must ensure that such narratives are interesting, understandable and persuasive to the judges. "Narratives," therefore, play important roles for constructing the facts by the two parties and for preparing the court verdicts. The strategies and methodologies used for judicial narratives are then of significant meanings and values.