Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:20:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Diogo Rais Rodrigues Moreira.pdf: 1893700 bytes, checksum: 82f2fcdd076bf7ca92e61d535638a434 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-06-17 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / This dissertation is based on the procedural branch of Constitutional Law, whose central goal laid on the public hearings held before the Brazilian Supreme Court so far. Facing this procedural institution, still incipient in the Brazilian judicial system, we are interested in identifying its origins and workability, beginning with a study of its legal creation and the spread of its use in the administrative bureaucracies and in the legislative activity. The public hearing went through a long road before knocking on the Judiciary s doors, and its exhaustive and uneasy task did not end by then. It was necessary to open up these doors, but, in order to effectively have its place, strong oppositions born from an array of taboos had to be faced and ceased slowly. At the Brazilian judiciary its triumph started in the Supreme Court, walking through the Supremo Tribunal Federal bars. Between its legal creation and the first public hearing held passed eight years, and more than 500 thousand lawsuits. In the history of this court, we counted five public hearings which were held, each of them in its own way, being their methodological and decisional variations the inspiration of this work; therefore, this dissertation s core is the empirical research of this new legal institute whose legal regime and concepts are still under construction / O presente trabalho foi construído sobre a órbita do Direito Constitucional em sua face processual, cujo objetivo central se deitou na audiência pública no Supremo Tribunal Federal. Diante deste instituto, ainda incipiente no Judiciário nacional, procuramos identificar suas origens e sua aplicabilidade no Estado brasileiro, iniciando com o estudo de sua criação legal e o seu uso disseminado na Administração Pública e na atividade legislativa. A audiência pública percorreu longo caminho antes de encontrar as portas do Judiciário brasileiro, e sua tarefa exaustiva e ofegante não terminou ali. Era necessário abrir essas portas, mas para adentrar sofreu e ainda sofre fortes resistências materializadas por uma rede de tabus, que aos poucos, lentamente, transpassa. No Judiciário nacional iniciou seu triunfo logo na Corte Suprema, adentrando às barras do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Entre sua previsão legal e a realização da primeira audiência pública transcorreram oito anos e por ali passaram mais de 500.000 processos. Na história desta Corte contamos com cinco audiências públicas realizadas, cada qual a sua maneira, e essa grande variação de método e decisões foram a inspiração deste trabalho, cujo núcleo reside na pesquisa empírica deste novel instituto que conta com conceitos e regime jurídico ainda em construção

La question prioritaire de constitutionnalité (QPC), instaurée en 2008, permet au Conseil constitutionnel de se prononcer sur la conformité d’une disposition législative déjà entrée en vigueur, aux « droits et libertés que la Constitution garantit ». Les effets substantiels des décisions QPC, c'est-à-dire la suppression ou la modification d’une disposition législative par le prononcé d’une inconstitutionnalité ou d’une réserve d’interprétation, peuvent se révéler importants compte tenu de la portée erga omnes de ces décisions. C’est alors par la maîtrise de leur application temporelle que les effets substantiels vont être encadrés voire modérés. Certains effets temporels revêtent un caractère automatique : la décision QPC en tant qu’elle porte sur une norme (la disposition législative en cause), s’insère dans l’ordonnancement juridique et, à ce titre, génère des conflits de normes. Par ailleurs, les effets temporels peuvent également, et surtout, être choisis par le Conseil constitutionnel, par l’utilisation de son pouvoir de modulation. Ce pouvoir a été conçu de manière à laisser une grande liberté au Conseil constitutionnel. Dans une démarche d’efficacité, le juge constitutionnel s’est fixé l’objectif de faire bénéficier le justiciable d’un« effet utile » de ses décisions et a par conséquent valorisé l’usage de la rétroactivité. Cependant, la liberté seule n’assure pas une pleine maîtrise de ce pouvoir de modulation et ce même pouvoir est parfois insuffisant pour régir les effets substantiels des décisions QPC. La thèse contribue, sur la base d’une analyse exhaustive de l’ensemble des décisions QPC du Conseil et de trèsnombreuses décisions dites « retour de QPC » des juridictions ordinaires, à étudier ces insuffisances et notamment le manque de réflexion sur la compatibilité entre la technique de la modulation et l’office du juge constitutionnel et sur la nécessité d’une collaboration avec les juridictions ordinaires. / The priority question of constitutionality (QPC), created in 2008, allows the french Constitutional Council to operate a judicial review of an adopted law. The substantial effects of a QPC decision, ie the abolition or the modification of a legislation by pronouncing its unconstitutionality or by interpreting it in accordance with the Constitution, can be considerable given the erga omnes impact of these decisions. These substantial effects can however be controlled or moderated by the temporal effects. Some temporal effects are inevitable: the QPCdecision since it concerns a norm (the law), integrates with the legal order and generates norms’ conflicts. Otherwise the temporal effects can be chosen by the Constitutional Council thanks to the ability of modulating the temporal effects of its decisions. This jurisdictional technical lets total liberty to the Constitutional Council. The court, in an efficacy perspective, sets the objectiveof giving a « useful effect » to the litigant and thus accords value to retroactivity. Yet this liberty alone isn’t enough to provide a complete control of this modulating ability and this ability can’t regulate all the substantial effects. This thesis, based on an exhaustive jurisprudential analysis ofthe QPC decisions, aims to study these difficulties and especially the lack of reflection about the compatibility of the technical into the judicial office of the court and about the essential collaboration with the ordinary jurisdictions.