Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:19:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Deborah Regina Lambach Ferreira da Costa.pdf: 721094 bytes, checksum: 08a6d037883f68580c4820a74a74bd27 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-09-23 / In a globalized world, owners of image rights are more vulnerable to damages for which compensation may be sought. New technologies, the web, TV, broadcasting channels and mechanical systems in general, which disseminate information in real time making it accessible to millions of people, increase this exposure to defamation. Both legal entities governed by private and public law that own rights of publicity consistent with their legal status run the risk of having their images damaged. Items V and X of article 5 of the Brazilian Constitution provide that these entities are entitle to compensation for libel and slander, or moral damages in a literal translation from Portuguese. Detaching the concept of libel and slander from pain and suffering , the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice published case law summary [ Súmula ] No. 227 which resulted in the application of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to prevent abuse of the freedom of expression and ensure maximum protection to reputation. This study is an in-depth analysis of image rights based on the initial assumption that these are autonomous rights of publicity entitled to protection both at constitutional and infraconstitutional level. The compensation for image damages leaves formal positivism aside to follow the paradigm shift introduced by the Constitution of Brazil ratified in 1988 when social, ethical and operational principles -- even within the scope of civil liability -- where brought to light allowing the interpretation of the Civil Code to be consistent with the concepts of equity and justice in an attempt to foster ethics and compassion in society / Na era globalizada, o titular do direito à imagem está mais vulnerável a sofrer um dano ressarcível. O avanço da tecnologia, a Internet, a televisão, os meios de radiodifusão e o sistema mecanizado em geral, que propagam a informação em tempo real, acessível a milhões e milhões de outros sujeitos, expõe as pessoas cada vez mais ao vilipêndio. Tanto as pessoas jurídicas de direito privado, como as de direito público, podem ser vítimas de dano à imagem, porque titulares de direitos da personalidade compatíveis com a sua natureza jurídica. Ademais, lhes é assegurada a reparação do dano moral nos incisos V e X do artigo 5º da Constituição Federal. A jurisprudência, desapegando-se do conceito de dano moral como o dano da alma , editou a Súmula n. 227 do Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Passou-se a interpretar o artigo 10 da Convenção Europeia de Direitos Humanos de modo a coibir abusos do direito de livre expressão na proteção da reputação em toda a sua amplitude. De modo que o direito à imagem será analisado com profundidade, tomando-se como ponto de partida a afirmação de que é um direito da personalidade autônomo, recebendo proteção constitucional e infraconstitucional. A reparação do dano à imagem aparta-se do rigor formal do positivismo, acompanhando a mudança de paradigma trazida pela Constituição Federal de 1988, que aflorou, inclusive no âmbito da responsabilidade civil, princípios como da socialidade, da eticidade e da operabilidade, com vistas a dar interpretação e subsunção às normas do Código Civil consentâneas com a equidade e a justiça, em prol de uma sociedade mais ética e fraterna

Les faits justificatifs spéciaux ont été définis et identifiés, dans le cadre de ces travaux de recherche,comme des causes objectives d’irresponsabilité pénale affectées à une ou quelques infractions précises, et prévues – sauf pour les faits justificatifs spéciaux prétoriens – par un texte lui-même affecté à la fonction justificative. Face à cette tentative d’élaboration d’une définition et d’un régime cohérents, l’éclatement conceptuel et l’enchevêtrement normatif qui caractérisent le droit contemporain s’expriment toutefois avec une acuité troublante dans l’évolution de la justification spéciale. Parce qu’ils sont si discrets à l’échelle de la répression pénale, parce qu’ils n’ont pour garantir leur intégrité ou leur cohérence ni principe cardinal, ni institution dédiée, les faits justificatifs spéciaux ont été entraînés sans résistance parle courant puissant des faits divers, des aléas politiques, des réformes institutionnelles et des espoirs européens. Leur étude a ainsi permis d’étoffer la réflexion doctrinale portant sur la redéfinition jurisprudentielle des infractions, sous l’influence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, et de revenir sur le dévoiement de la norme pénale instrumentalisée par d’autres domaines juridiques à la recherche de symbolisme, et participant ainsi à l’expansion du droit pénal sanctionnateur. Qu’ils pointent du doigt la jurisprudence ou le faiseur de lois, les faits justificatifs spéciaux trahissent par leur modestie et leur petitesse la démesure des ambitions des acteurs institutionnels du droit pénal. / In this work, special justifications have been defined as objective defenses assigned to one or very fewspecific crimes, and provided for – unless they are judge-made – by legal texts centered on their justificatory function. The attempt to construct an accurate definition and a coherent regime was complicated by the conceptual fragmentation and normative entanglement of contemporary French criminal law. Not only are special justifications very subtle mechanisms in the broad scheme of criminalliability, but they do not have, to guarantee their conceptual integrity, the shelter of a dedicated institution or core legal principle. Consequently, special justifications have been carried along by the steady stream of political change, current events, institutional reform and European ambitions. The study of special justifications allows us to reconsider jurisprudential debates regarding judicial (re)definition of crimes under the influence of the European Court of Human Rights. It also gives a new perspective on thewell-documented phenomenon of the “corruption” of criminal law caused by its instrumentalization. In a phenomenon some academics call “disciplinary” criminal law, other legal branches make use of criminallaw’s symbolic strength. In these respects, the subtlety of special justifications exposes the immodesty of judges and legislators with respect to their ambitions for criminal law.

This thesis investigates whether institutional journalism should receive special treatment at the hands of the law. Special treatment encompasses the affording of benefits to and the imposition of liabilities on journalistic institutions and the individuals who work for them. The arguments against special treatment are pragmatic and theoretical: pragmatic arguments emphasise, inter alia, the difficulty of providing a definition of journalism, and theoretical arguments emphasise the difficulty in explaining why special treatment can be coherent. The former can be addressed by describing how special treatment is already afforded to institutional journalism, both liabilities and benefits, to individuals and institutions, and showing that some of the problems foreseen by the pragmatic arguments have not proved as difficult as they appear. The arguments that special treatment is incoherent can be addressed by arguing that the credibility and assessability of institutional journalism still provide a prima facie rationale for special treatment irrespective of the rise of public speech on the Internet, when combined with the integral nature of journalism to democracy. Two basic arguments are advanced why this is so. The first, the free speech values argument, is a consequentialist account that holds that special treatment is appropriate when (or because) institutional journalism contributes to free speech values. It is attractive, but presents difficulties, both when considered in the abstract and when applied to the free speech value of democracy. The second, a rights-based argument, based on the notion that freedoms of speech and of the Press are distinguishable, can be based on either on Dworkin’s theory of rights as trumps or Raz’s theory of rights as interests. Raz’s account is preferable, as it complements the free speech values thesis in explaining the coherence of special treatment.

This PhD dissertation is about legal fictions in private law. A legal fiction, broadly, is a false assumption knowingly relied upon by the courts. The main aim of the dissertation is to formulate a test for which fictions should be accepted and which rejected. Subsidiary aims include a better understanding of the fiction as a device and of certain individual fictions, past and present. This research is undertaken, primarily, to establish a rigorous system for the treatment of fictions in English law - which is lacking. Secondarily, it is intended to settle some intractable disputes, which have plagued the scholarship. These theoretical debates have hindered progress on the practical matters which affect litigants in the real world. The dissertation is divided into four chapters. The first chapter is a historical study of common-law fictions. The conclusions drawn thereform are the foundation of the acceptance test for fictions. The second chapter deals with the theoretical problems surrounding the fiction. Chiefly, it seeks precisely to define 'legal fiction', a recurrent problem in the literature. A solution, in the form of a two-pronged definition, is proposed, adding an important element to the acceptance test. The third chapter analyses modern-day fictions and recommends retention or abolition for each fiction. In the fourth chapter, the findings hitherto are synthesised into a general acceptance test for fictions. This test, which is the thesis of this work, is presented as a flowchart. It is the author's hope that this project will raise awareness as to the merits and demerits of legal fictions, de-mystify the debate and bring about reform.

Les faits justificatifs de la diffamation témoignent de la difficile conciliation entre le droit à la protection de l’honneur et le droit à l’information. Le domaine de l’exception de vérité (art. 35 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881), délimité par trois exceptions en 1944, fut rapidement critiqué, en ce qu’il ne permettait pas la justification des imputations les plus utiles à la société. En outre, la sévérité des conditions de fond et de forme de la preuve de la vérité fit le plus souvent obstacle à la relaxe. En réaction, la jurisprudence créa le fait justificatif de la bonne foi, fondé sur quatre critères accessibles (but légitime, sérieux de l’enquête, prudence et mesure dans l’expression, défaut d’animosité personnelle et favorisant un droit du public à l’information de qualité. À la fin du XXème siècle, ce système fut profondément mis en cause, comme étant contraire à la jurisprudence de la CEDH relative à l’article 10 CESDH, laquelle impose une protection accrue des propos d’intérêt général ou politiques. En conséquence, le Conseil constitutionnel supprima deux des trois limites à l’exception de vérité, qui n’est plus interdite que dans domaine de la vie privée. Ce nouvel arbitrage entre les deux valeurs en conflit n’apparaît pas satisfaisant, d’autant que la preuve de la vérité est toujours entravée par des conditions drastiques. En 2008, la Cour de cassation intégra de manière radicale les critères strasbourgeois à sa jurisprudence sur la bonne foi. Elle se dirige aujourd’hui vers une formule plus équilibrée, fondée sur l’application proportionnelle des quatre critères traditionnels corrigés à la lumière des principes de la CEDH. Cependant, elle applique également les critères strasbourgeois à d’autres infractions attentatoires à la liberté d’expression, qui ne bénéficient pas de la structure d’accueil des faits justificatifs de la diffamation. Pour ces cas, au lieu de l’adoption du contrôle de proportionnalité envisagée, la création d’un fait justificatif générique fondé sur l’article 10 de la CESDH est proposée, plus respectueuse de la logique pénale. / The special justifications applicable to defamation bare witness to the difficult conciliation between the right to protect ones honor and the public’s right to information. The area of the defence of truth (art. 35 of the 29 July 1881), delineated by three exceptions in 1944, was rapidly critiqued, preventing the justification of some of the most socially useful imputations. Furthermore, the defence of truth was subjected to highly rigourous formal and substantial requirements that often prevented ones acquittal on the basis of that demonstration. In reaction, the case-law created another special justification for defamation, based on good faith, and founded on four accessible criterias (legitimate aim of the information, serious verification, moderation of tone and caution in the choice of words, lack of personal animosity) that favorise the public’s right to quality information. At the end of the 20th century, this system was profoundly questioned, as being against the case-law of the CEDH, that requires a stronger protection of freedom of speech (article 10 CESDH) in connexion with debates of general interest or political discussions. Consequently, the Constitutional council repealed two of the three limits within the defence of truth, which is now only forbidden in the area of ones private life. This new arbitration between the two conflicting values doesn’t seem satisfying, especially since the defence of truth is still impeded by drastic conditions. In 2008, the Court of cassation integrated in a radical manner the CEDH criterias to its case-law on good faith. The case-law today steers towards a more balanced formula, founded on a proportional application of the four traditional criterias corrected in the light of the principes of the CEDH. However, the Court of cassation equally applies the CEDH criterias to other detrimental offences towards the freedom of expression, that do not benefit from the structural support of the special justifications of defamation. For those offences, instead of adopting the envisioned control of proportionality, it is proposed to create a generic justification, founded on the article 10 of the CESDH, that would be more consistent with the logic of criminal law.

Sammanfattning Yttrandefriheten utgör en av grundbultarna i en demokratisk rättsstat. I svensk rätt är den grundlagsskyddade yttrandefriheten, reglerad i TF och YGL, starkt förankrad. De inskränkningar som får göras i denna bygger på noggranna överväganden. Att utpeka annan fysisk person såsom brottslig, klandervärd i sitt levnadssätt eller eljest lämna uppgift som är ägnad att utsätta denna för andras missaktning utgör förtal. Förtal är såväl ett yttrandefrihetsbrott enligt 7 kap. 4 § p. 14 TF, som ett brott mot person enligt 5 kap. 1–2 §§ BrB. Det som den svenska förtalsregleringen syftar till att skydda är den objektiva äran: anseendet, det goda namnet och ryktet hos det potentiella offret.   I svensk rätt har intagits en ståndpunkt om att juridiska personer inte är berättigade till ett rättsligt skydd vid förtal, eftersom förtalet inte anses angripa någons anseende. Införandet av ett straffrättsligt ansvar vid förtal mot juridisk person har föreslagits, men avfärdats med motiveringen att det skulle utgöra en omotiverad inskränkning i yttrandefriheten. I vissa utländska rättssystem, vilka upprätthåller en stark yttrandefrihet, åtnjuter juridiska personer dock ett rättsligt skydd mot förtal genom straffrättslig eller civilrättslig lagstiftning. Juridiska personer åtnjuter därtill flertalet grundläggande ekonomiska och personliga fri- och rättigheter inom unions- och konventionsrätten. Av nämnda fri- och rättigheter är rätten till effektiva rättsmedel av särskild betydelse. Därtill är medlemsstater i Europeiska unionen (EU) skyldiga att tillhandahålla effektiva rättsmedel till enskilda för att säkra ett effektivt domstolsskydd. Det har ännu inte prövats huruvida en särskild civilrättslig skadeståndsreglering vid förtal mot juridisk person bör införas i svensk rätt, i syfte att skapa ett effektivt rättsmedel som är mindre benäget att inskränka yttrandefriheten.   I förevarande framställning konstateras att juridiska personer åtnjuter ett kommersiellt anseende och ett rykte som kan bli föremål för kränkningar genom förtal. Skadeverkningarna av förtal är i huvudsak ekonomiska. Svensk rätt, avseende bristen på rättsmedel vid förtal mot juridisk person, är oförenlig med unions- och konventionsrätten, eftersom den riskerar att direkt kränka juridiska personers grundläggande fri- och rättigheter. I svensk rätt existerar en möjlighet att reglera förtal mot juridisk person i skadeståndslagen (1972:207). Direkta ingrepp i den grundlagsskyddade yttrandefriheten undviks därigenom. Det särskilda civilrättsliga skyddet som i förevarande framställning föreslås, bör omfatta ogrundade uppgifter som utgör anklagelser om brott vilka har begåtts inom den juridiska personens verksamhet eller i dennas namn, eller eljest ogrundade uppgifter om specifik omständighet. Det nämnda skyddet mot förtal bör kunna göras effektivt genom införandet av en särskild skadeståndsregel.

No description available.

No description available.

With the increased global infringement of personal rights, it is necessary to be aware of the protection in the different legal systems, especially Anglo-American. Even if the consequences are to be felt in the domestic legal order, the enforceability is recognized under the foreign legal order. The protection is worldwide and through the case law from the European Court of Human Rights the two legal systems - Common law and the Civil Law are penetrating the legislation and the case law in respect of the institute of the protection of personal rights. The doctorate thesis presents the complex introduction to the area of protection of personal rights in the Common law, especially in English law, Commonwealth countries and USA that has not been presented yet for the Czech legal professionals. The thesis explains theoretical concept of the Common law and its background for the purpose of explanation of differences of examined legal orders. The institute is explained on the key historical case law that led to establish the Common law principles. The thesis uses the current and topical legal cases and problems that the orders face in the 21st Century.