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.

Submitted by Biblioteca Central (biblioteca@unicap.br) on 2017-11-08T18:47:34Z No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao_denise_texeira_oliveira.pdf: 941783 bytes, checksum: b17927bfd558c8f4b021f80f249df75a (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-11-08T18:47:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao_denise_texeira_oliveira.pdf: 941783 bytes, checksum: b17927bfd558c8f4b021f80f249df75a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-02-07 / The purpose of this dissertation is to theoretically analyze article 5°, LXXVIII of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988, known as the Fundamental Right to the Reasonable Duration of the Lawsuit, or the right to a lawsuit without unneeded dilations. This study is constructed through a dialectic hermeneutical process, aiming Procedural Law which has constitutional foundation. The problematic is centered historically and is developed during the 45th Constitutional Amendment scenario, within the procedimentalist and substantialist paradigmatic conflict, who define the part that should be played by the magistrate in the Constitutional State of Law. The hypothesis is of which the insertion of the Fundamental Right to the Reasonable Duration of the Lawsuit in the hard core of constitutional text gives it, through a material and formal points of view, legal characteristics of fundamental right, with immediate and complete efficacy, even thought it does not have aptitude to interfere in the procedural march, reducing their time span. It also demonstrates that many assumptions under which the jurisdictional response delay problem are untrue, because they are not scientific approaches of the problem or have shown themselves unable to solve the problem. Recognizing the relativity of its concept and theoretical abstractions of the Fundamental Right, firm an concept of the terms Right to the Reasonable Duration of the Lawsuit are made, taking into consideration the many view points of the actors in its relation. With its iusfundamentality, the Right to the Reasonable Duration of the Lawsuit puts itself through an interdisciplinary approach with other themes of the legal science, questioning the doubts of its judiciality, bringing back to focus the problem of the criteria of legitimation of the jurisdictional power in Brazilian law, the role of the magistrate in the realization of rights, and the realization of the material effects of the judicial decisions. Also as an objective, making the Fundamental Right to the Reasonable Duration of the Lawsuit shine its theme of the civil responsibility of the state and magistrate due to the unlawful time dilation of the judicial lawsuits, due to negligence or disdain in the conduction of the lawsuit, having in mind the text that resulted from the parallel amendment after the promulgation of the 45th amendment to the Constitution of Brazil. The active and passive entitlement of the Fundamental Right to the Reasonable Duration of the Lawsuit will also be studied, as will be the consequences of its vertical efficiency against the state, and horizontally, as a reflection of the fundamental rights between particulars- which operates, in the case of the right studied, between the poles of the procedural relationship whose time gap has grown beyond what is reasonably expected. / A proposta desta dissertação é a análise teórica do artigo 5°, inciso LXXVIII, da Constituição Federal de 1988, conhecido como Direito Fundamental à Duração Razoável do Processo, ou Direito ao Processo sem Dilações Indevidas. O estudo é construído sob método hermenêutico-dialético, com enfoque no Direito Processual que tem assento constitucional. A problemática é centrada historicamente e desenvolvida no cenário da Reforma do Poder Judiciário implementada pela Emenda Constitucional n°45/04, bem como, dentro do contexto de confronto entre os paradigmas procedimentalista e substancialista que definem, segundo os discursos de aplicação e justificação, o papel da magistratura no Estado constitucional e democrático de direito. A hipótese é a de que a inserção do direito à Duração Razoável do Processo no núcleo fundamental do texto constitucional dá a ele, tanto do ponto de vista formal quanto material, natureza jurídica de Direito Fundamental, com eficácia plena e imediata, embora não tenha a aptidão para interferir na marcha dos processos, abreviando-lhe o tempo de duração. Este trabalho demonstra, ainda, que algumas das premissas sobre as quais o tema da morosidade da prestação jurisdicional se desenvolve na atualidade são falsas, porquanto não se prestem a uma abordagem científica e, principalmente, por se mostrarem inócuas a solucionar o problema. Reconhecendo a relatividade e abstração conceitual dos direitos fundamentais em geral, esta dissertação estabelece uma definição operacional dos termos Duração Razoável do Processo, levando em consideração e discutindo as diversas óticas dos atores da relação processual. Com sua jusfundamentalidade, a Duração Razoável do Processo vem, em uma abordagem interdisciplinar, colocar-se em cotejo com outros temas da Ciência Jurídica, questionando acerca de sua judiciabilidade, reacendendo a problemática dos critérios de legitimação para o exercício do Poder jurisdicional no direito brasileiro, do papel do magistrado na concretização dos direitos materiais e, por conseguinte, a conscientização acerca dos efeitos concretos das decisões judiciais. Visa, também, fazer o Direito Fundamental à Duração Razoável do Processo iluminar o tema da Teoria geral da responsabilidade civil do Estado e do magistrado em decorrência da dilação indevida do tempo de duração dos processos judiciais, analisando as hipóteses em que tal fato se dá por negligência ou desídia na condução do processo, tendo em vista o texto que resultou na Proposta de Emenda Constitucional paralela após a promulgação da Emenda Constitucional n°45/04. Também serão estudadas as titularidades ativa e passiva do Direito Fundamental à Duração Razoável do Processo, como conseqüência de sua eficácia vertical, contra o Estado e, horizontal, referente à eficácia dos direitos fundamentais entre particulares - que se operam, no caso do direito em estudo, entre as partes da relação processual - quando litigam em processo que se desenvolveu em lapso de tempo além do que razoavelmente se esperava.

JUDGE-MADE LAW COMPARISON BETWEEN THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Keywords: judge-made law; the European Union; the Court of Justice of the European Union; the Supreme Court of the United States; judicialization of governance; Kelsenian court; European constitutional space; European constitution; normativity; constitutional pluralism; sovereignty; federalism; post-communist states; new Member States of the European Union. Standard page (that is 1800 characters per page) and word count (including footnotes; without the contents, bibliography and annexes): 327 standard pages; 82 795 words. The Ph.D. thesis offers a complex reconceptualization of the constitutional system in the European Union. The constitutional systems of the Member States have been substantially transformed during the 20th century. Meanwhile a new constitutional system functioning in the Member States alongside their own systems has emerged - the constitutional system of the European Union. These two fundamental changes are difficult to grasp through an existing theoretical framework. That is because the framework is based on a set of outdated concepts: (i) Rousseau's concept of volonté générale that forms the basis of the parliamentary supremacy in a constitutional system; (ii)...

The concept of judicial law-making impacts on the extent, meaning and scope relationship between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. It is an integral function of the courts while its shape, meaning and nature seem to lack sufficient formulation and articulation, which results in an inherent problem regarding its legitimacy. This study examines the legitimacy and the working of the South African constitutional judicial law-making concepts. Its effect on the constitutional relationships between all three branches of government is scrutinized. In order to fully probe this concept, its impact and application on the separation of powers, judicial review, constitutional deference and mandatory minimum sentences becomes inevitable. The introductory part of this study looks at origins and historical development of the separation of powers doctrine and its application under the 1996 South African Constitution. The latter part focuses on the nature and the scope of judicial review, judicial law-making, constitutional deference and mandatory minimum sentences with a view establishing the impact of these concepts in our judicial law-making. The development of these concepts by South African courts, and what seems to be the lack of formulation and articulation of South African constitutional judicial law-making which raises questions regarding its legitimacy is probed. This research recommends that it is of the utmost importance that South Africa develops its own unique and comprehensive doctrine of separation of powers. The Constitution further requires reforms in order to clarify the extent to which the courts can go when formulating laws and public policy in the interests of justice, and whether the interests-of-justice test is capable of delivering a well-informed outcome in developing this jurisdiction’s laws. South African jurisprudence also needs to be developed in empowering the legislature to make laws which are constitutionally compliant without making the courts the sole expositor of the Constitution. Lastly, the extent to which the legislature can enact certain laws must be redefined, which on face value might seems to be encroaching into the courts’ independence and authority. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL. D. (Criminal and Procedural Law)