A presente dissertação objetiva ampliar o tratamento dogmático da modulação temporal dos efeitos da decisão que reconhece a inconstitucionalidade de atos normativos. Busca-se também abordar a perspectiva prospectiva no controle de legalidade e na aferição de juridicidade dos demais atos não normativos praticados no âmbito dos três poderes. Além de abordar os pressupostos teóricos subjacentes à abordagem prospectiva, foram analisados os sistemas de controle de constitucionalidade e os distintos regimes conferidos às situações de invalidade. Promove-se a releitura do tema de forma a reconduzir a modulação dos efeitos temporais à ponderação entre os princípios constitucionais violados pela norma que se pretende declarar inválida e os que tutelam as relações jurídicas que se formaram durante a vigência da norma declarada inválida. Discorre-se particularmente sobre o tema no Brasil, evidenciando-se que a perspectiva prospectiva não se circunscreve apenas ao regramento formal estabelecido pelas normas infraconstitucionais. Por fim, apresenta-se a modulação de efeitos como uma ferramenta valiosa de diálogo institucional, que pode permitir a conciliação dos espaços próprios dos poderes constituídos, temperando um eventual ativismo judicial. Evidencia-se que a modulação temporal de efeitos funciona como ponte entre as teorias empíricas e normativas. Vale-se de abordagens consequencialistas e institucionais sem se descurar da preocupação normativa e dogmática. Permite concomitantemente o debate mais intenso e o diálogo entre os poderes, tudo com o objetivo de se assegurar a concretização dos preceitos constitucionais de uma forma mais harmônica e sistemática. / This essay intends to enlarge the dogmatic approach concerning to the prospective effect of the decision which recognizes the unconstitutionality of the normative acts. The essay also addresses the prospectivity doctrine to the legality control and other acts - not regulatory - performed by the three branches. Besides addressing the theoretical assumptions underlying the prospective approach, it analyzes the judicial review system and the different schemes given to invalidity situations. It allows a new investigation about the theme in order to conduct the prospective effect to the balance between the constitutional principles violated by the rule that it wants to declare invalid and the principles which protect the legal relationships formed during the term of the rule declared invalid. The essay also addresses the subject in Brazil, showing that the prospective approach is not limited only by the standards formally established in law. Finally, the essay presents the prospective effect as a valuable tool for institutional dialogue, which may allow the reconciliation of the branches own spaces, tempering any judicial activism. The prospective effect works as a bridge between the empirical and normative theories. It takes into account consequentialist and institutional approaches without neglecting the normative and dogmatic concerns. At the same time, it allows the most intense debate and dialogue among the branches, ensuring the constitutional provisions in a more harmonious and systematic way.

Marinha do Brasil / O texto constitucional brasileiro de 1988 sofreu diversas alterações em matéria tributária e financeira. Praticamente todas as emendas constitucionais tiveram sua constitucionalidade questionada em razão de alegadas violações aos limites materiais do poder de reforma constitucional. O presente trabalho procura delinear alguns parâmetros para a construção de contornos mais precisos dos limites do poder de reforma constitucional em matéria tributária e financeira. A delimitação de tais parâmetros de reforma, além de contribuir para o exercício da jurisdição constitucional na análise da constitucionalidade das emendas constitucionais, permite que sejam mais bem delineadas quais as decisões fundamentais que a Constituição adotou na seara financeira e tributária, relacionadas ao federalismo, aos direitos fundamentais e à separação de poderes. / This study aims to analyze the constitutional amendments and to examine the limitations to which they are submitted in tax and public finance law. Constitutional changes are necessary as means of preservation and conservation of the Constitution. Constitutional norms are not to be considered perfect but are yet in a constant state of mutual interaction with reality. The obtained results with the research enables us to evaluate the limitations that are imposed to constitutional amendments, the binding orders of the Constitutional Court, the prohibition of abolition of perpetual clauses, as the prohibition retreating to fundamental rights, federalism and separation of powers.

Apesar de o direito ser feito para trazer estabilidade à sociedade e garantia a seus membros, hoje em dia no Brasil esse propósito não se verifica adequadamente como deveria. Este trabalho se concentra na segurança jurídica, uma expressão no direito romanogermânico que contém a idéia de como o direito deve dar ao povo um sentido de certeza e também embasa a coisa julgada e o controle de constitucionalidade. Na verdade, o sentido de estabilidade no direito brasileiro está em crise. Este estudo procura saber o motivo e tenta achar uma resposta na doutrina e nas decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal para entender como isso afeta a coisa julgada e o controle de constitucionalidade. A conclusão leva à idéia de que o modelo de controle difuso de constitucionalidade sem a vinculação obrigatória dos precedentes, combinado com um enfoque no controle concentrado e abstrato de constitucionalidade é a causa de vários problemas, afetando não apenas o conceito de coisa julgada mas também trazendo danos à segurança jurídica. / Altough law is made to bring stability to the society, and assurance for its members, nowadays in Brazil its purpose is not occurring properly and as it should do. This work focuses on legal security, a term in civil law that contains the idea of how law must give people a sense of certainty, and also supports the res judicata and judicial review. Actually, the sense of stability in Brazilian law is in crisis. This study wonders why and tries to find an answer in jurisprudence and in the Supremo Tribunal Federal (Brazilian supreme court) decisions to understand how it affects the institutes of res judicata and judicial review. The conclusion leads to the idea that a judicial review model without stare decisis combined with the classic civil law constitutional court is the cause of several problems, affecting not only the concept of res judicata but also damaging the legal security.

O presente trabalho busca analisar a evolução da discussão dogmática sobre a relação entre direito interno e direito internacional na jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal. A pesquisa dedica especial atenção a três casos específicos, julgados entre 2008 e 2010, que são representativos de uma nova fase no entendimento corte, em que o Supremo Tribunal Federal tratou de uma série de questões inéditas na sua jurisprudência. São eles a decisão, em 2008, sobre a prisão civil do depositário infiel, proibida pela Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos; a ADPF no 101, de 2009, sobre a importação de pneus usados e remoldados, cuja regulamentação também foi objeto de decisões no âmbito do Mercosul e da OMC; e a ADPF no 153, de 2010, que discutiu a Lei da Anistia, também tratada na Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. Mapeando as discussões dogmáticas nesses casos, busca-se identificar as implicações dos tratados internacionais e das decisões de tribunais internacionais para o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, bem como as contradições e omissões de tais decisões. A análise do desenvolvimento da jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal considera as transformações ocorridas no direito internacional a partir do final da Segunda Guerra Mundial e as mudanças incorporadas às constituições brasileiras, e em especial a Constituição de 1988 e a sua Emenda no 45, de 2004. / This study seeks to analyze the evolution of the dogmatic debate on the relationship between domestic and international law in the Brazilian Supreme Courts case law. The research devotes special attention to three specific cases, decided between 2008 and 2010, which are representative of a new phase in the courts understanding, in which the Supreme Court has dealt with completely new issues. These cases are the following: the decision in 2008 on the civil imprisonment of an unfaithful trustee, prohibited by the American Convention on Human Rights; ADPF No. 101, from of 2009, on the import of used tires, which had also been the subject of decisions within Mercosur and WTO; and ADPF No 153, from 2010, which discussed the Brazilian Amnesty Act, also addressed by the Interamerican Court of Human Rights. By mapping dogmatic discussions of these cases, I seek to identify the implications of international treaties and decisions of international tribunals for the Brazilian legal system, as well as the contradictions and omissions of such decisions. The analysis of the development of the Supreme Courts case law considers the transformation occurring in international law since the end of World War II and the changes incorporated into the Brazilian constitutions, and in particular the Constitution of 1988 and its Amendment No 45 of 2004.

A presente dissertação dedica-se ao estudo da relação entre a teoria e a prática do Supremo Tribunal Federal no que diz respeito aos limites da interpretação conforme a Constituição. A partir do confronto entre as principais lições doutrinárias sobre o tema e os acórdãos proferidos pela Corte nos processos do controle abstrato de constitucionalidade, verifica-se que os limites reconhecidos pela doutrina e pelo Tribunal não são obedecidos em muitos dos precedentes, casos nos quais tem-se a utilização da interpretação conforme como mecanismo de correção e integração judicial do direito. Nesse cenário, busca-se averiguar a legitimidade de tal conduta pelo aplicador do direito. Chega-se, assim, a conclusão de que, nos casos em que o Supremo Tribunal Federal se vê diante de hipóteses em que há lacuna ou antinomia que não podem ser resolvidas pela interpretação conforme em sua função de decisão, o princípio da inafastabilidade da jurisdição impõe a aplicação da integração conforme a Constituição, desde que ela não esteja vedada tácita ou expressamente pelo ordenamento e que a decisão que a determine esteja fundamentada. / This study tries to understand the relationship between theory and practice regarding the limits of the interpretation according to the Constitution. Confronting the most common jurisprudence that relates to the topic and the decisions that the Supreme Court emitted in the cases of abstract judicial review, it becomes clear that the before mentioned limits of the interpretation according to the Constitution aren\'t respected by the decisions of the Court and that the technique is used as a mechanism of correction and integrity of the law. In this scenario, this study tries to reveal the legitimacy of the decisions the Supreme Court took on this basis. The conclusion one has arrived at states that in the cases in which the Supreme Court confronts itself with antinomy or law blanks that can\'t be resolved by regular interpretation, the non liquet principle forces the Court to correct or to integrate the law, as long as: 1) it isn\'t expressly or implicitly forbidden by the constitutional text; and 2) the decision is thoroughly motivated.

A sociedade brasileira aguarda pacientemente e há anos uma real reforma que introduza a ética e a moral no meio político e faça valer a soberania de seu povo. De um lado, observa-se um Poder Legislativo com sérias dificuldades de quebrar sua inércia e cumprir o seu papel de concretizar a lei como expressão da vontade geral. De outro, um Poder Judiciário que busca suprir os anseios sociais dando efetividade aos direitos fundamentais colocados na Constituição Federal da República Brasileira de 1988. O presente estudo almeja analisar como o Estado brasileiro tem convivido com um intenso ativismo judicial ou judicialização da política e suas consequências para a democracia pátria. Para a eficácia de suas conclusões, limitou-se o campo de estudo à matéria eleitoral, dada sua cristalina correlação com o Estado Democrático de Direito. Foram selecionadas, deste modo, as recentes decisões dos Tribunais nacionais em temas eleitorais para averiguar os reflexos desta jurisprudência sobre as bases democráticas de nosso país. E, em assim procedendo, foram trazidos elementos para uma crítica fundamentada à tentativa do Poder Judiciário de moralizar as instituições políticas, buscando fornecer as bases para concluir se esse altivo movimento dos Tribunais logrou, de fato, o aprimoramento do regime democrático vigente, preservando a harmonia entre os Poderes, a unidade do ordenamento jurídico e a legitimidade das instituições da nação ou se, ao contrário, apenas soluções pontuais foram conquistadas, combatendo-se uma doença grave com remédios paliativos ao invés de atacar a real causa das mazelas que assolam o Estado Democrático de Direito brasileiro. / The Brazilian society waits patiently and for many years for a deep change that introduces ethics and moral to politics to renew the sovereignty of its people. On one hand, the Parliament presents serious difficulties in moving forward to fulfill its role of materializing the law as an expression of the general will. On the other hand, the judiciary tries to meet social expectations, providing effectiveness to basic rights constitutionally established. This study aims to analyze how the Brazilian State has been living with an intense judicial activism and a judicialization of its politics and its consequences to democracy. For the effectiveness of its conclusions, the object of the analysis was limited to electoral issue, due to its crystal clear relation with the Rule of Law. In this manner, some recent judicial decisions of the national Courts as regards electoral subjects were chosen to verify the consequences of this jurisprudence on the democratic foundations of our country. And, in so proceeding, many aspects were brought to enable a justified criticism to the judiciary attempt to moralize political institutions, trying to provide the basis for the following questions: have, in fact, this noble movement of the Courts succeeded in improving the current democratic Brazilian system, preserving the harmony between the Powers, the unity of the legal system and the legitimacy of the nation institutions?; or, on the opposite, only few hoc solutions have been conquered, fighting with a serious illness by ministering palliative drugs, instead of solving the real cause of the illness that plagues the State?

Les juridictions constitutionnelles ont sans doute de larges compétences interprétatives. Toutefois, l’ampleur de ces compétences varie dans les différents ordres juridiques selon l’aptitude que les autres organes et autorités de l’Etat peuvent adopter devant ces interprétations. Une juridiction constitutionnelle a une suprématie interprétative dans un Etat en particulier si ses interprétations doivent être obligatoirement respectées et appliquées par tous les autres organes et autorités de l’Etat. Si ses interprétations sont seulement obligatoires pour quelques autorités, cette juridiction constitutionnelle a simplement une compétence interprétative supérieure vis-à-vis de ces autorités. Afin d’identifier les plus larges compétences interprétatives des juridictions constitutionnelles, la démarche comparative est hautement recommandée parce qu’elle permet de distinguer plus facilement les limitations que ces juridictions peuvent rencontrer dans leurs ordres juridiques respectifs. Ainsi, en suivant cette démarche, seront identifiées l’ampleur des compétences interprétatives des juridictions constitutionnelles française et colombienne et leurs répercussions dans chacun de leurs Etats. / Constitutional jurisdictions should have wide interpretative powers. However, the scope of these competences varies in different legal systems depending on the ability of other authorities to adopt such interpretations. A constitutional court has interpretative supremacy in a particular State, if its interpretations are binding for all other departments of the State. If its interpretations are just binding for some authorities, this constitutional court would simply have a superior interpretative competence toward those authorities. In order to determine the broader interpretative powers of the constitutional courts, the comparative approach is highly recommended because it makes easier to distinguish the limitations that these jurisdictions may encounter in their respective legal systems. In this way, the scope of the interpretative powers of the French and Colombian constitutional courts will be identified as well as their repercussions in each of its states.

Depuis l'adoption de sa première législation antidumping en 1989, la Turquie est entrée dans le groupe des pays qui sont les utilisateurs les plus fréquents des mesures antidumping. Pourtant, le dispositif antidumping du pays a besoin d'une réforme importante. L'Accord antidumping de l'OMC a force de loi en droit turc. De plus, il y a une législation antidumping nationale qui est composée d'une loi, d'un décret et d'un règlement. Toutefois, il n'y a aucune exigence juridique d'avoir une loi ou un décret dans la législation antidumping. Ainsi, nous proposons d'abroger la Loi et le Décret antidumping et de limiter la base juridique des procédures antidumping au Règlement antidumping. Ceci donnera aux autorités une flexibilité par rapport à la réalisation des amendements dont il y aura besoin à l'avenir, et éliminera le grand nombre de chevauchements qu'il y a dans la Législation actuelle. Cette dernière contient des dispositions incompatibles avec l'Accord antidumping, celles-ci doivent être modifiées. Il y a également des aspects où les règles écrites sont compatibles avec l'Accord antidumping, mais où la pratique des autorités ne suit pas ces règles. Ce genre de pratique ne doit pas être répété. Nous estimons que la place et la structure de l'autorité turque en matière d'antidumping sont loin d'être idéales et ne répondent pas aux besoins des industries nationales. A notre avis, il faut soit organiser cette autorité comme un organisme gouvernemental indépendant soit la sortir du Ministère de l'économie et l'attacher à l'Autorité de la concurrence soit l'organiser, avec les autres départements du Ministère s'occupant des mesures correctives commerciales, comme une nouvelle direction générale au Ministère. La révision judiciaire des constatations de l'autorité d'enquête n'est pas efficace en Turquie. Il faut établir un tribunal spécialisé pour cette révision et donner, aux juges fonctionnant dans ce tribunal, la formation nécessaire pour assurer une révision judiciaire efficace. / Since the adoption of its first anti-dumping legislation in 1989, Turkey made its way into the list of countries that are the most active users of anti-dumping measures. However, the country's anti­dumping system needs a comprehensive reform. The WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement has the force of law under Turkish law. Further, there is national anti-dumping legislation consisting of a law, a decree and a regulation. Yet, there is no legal requirement that necessitates the inclusion of a law or decree in the anti-dumping legislation. Therefore, we propose to repeal the Anti-Dumping Law and Decree and to limit the legal basis for anti-dumping proceedings to the Anti-Dumping Regulation. This will provide the authorities with the flexibility to make the amendments that will be needed in future, and will eliminate the man y instances of overlap among the three elements of the current legislation. The current legislation contains certain provisions that are inconsistent with the Anti­Dumping Agreement and they need to be modified. There are also aspects where the written rules are compatible with WTO principles but the authorities' practice does not follow such rules. This type o1 practice should not be repeated. We argue that the place and structure of the Turkish anti-dumping authority is far from ideal and does not respond to the needs of national industries. In our view, the authority should be detached from the Ministry of Economy and organized as an independent government agency, or should be attached to the Competition Authority, or should be reorganized, together with other departments that also deal with trade remedies, as a new directorate general within the Ministry of Economy. Judicial review of the determinations of the investigating authority is not effective. We propose to establish a specialized court for this review and to provide the judges who will serve in this court with the necessary training in order to ensure effective judicial review.

Comment expliquer que des juges non élus puissent écarter la volonté des représentants élus et responsables devant le peuple ? La critique principale adressée à l’encontre du contrôle juridictionnel de constitutionnalité des lois renvoie ainsi à sa dimension anti-démocratique, puisque les conceptions classiques de la démocratie mettent l’accent sur l’élection. Aux États-Unis, cette « difficulté contre-majoritaire » est encore accentuée en raison des origines prétoriennes du "judicial review". Cette étude, centrée sur la Cour suprême, ne vise pas à résoudre la difficulté contre-majoritaire, au demeurant insoluble. L’objectif est d’étudier comment a opéré, et continue d’opérer, la critique contre-majoritaire, à analyser les causes structurelles de la prégnance du débat, et à voir s’il peut être relativisé. Il est en effet possible d’apprécier la dimension majoritaire du "judicial review", au sens où il traduit les aspirations majoritaires du corps social. Entre le « noble rêve», celui d’une Cour héroïquement contre-majoritaire qui protègerait les droits des minorités, et le « cauchemar », celui d’une Cour tyrannique imposant sa volonté, il existe un espace dans lequel on peut envisager la réalité de ce que font les juges. La mise en lumière de l’influence de l’opinion publique sur la Cour ouvre la voie à une appréciation réaliste de ce qu’est le "judicial review", ce qui suppose de s’éloigner des modèles formalistes. Cette relativisation de la difficulté contre-majoritaire n’est pas une résolution de la question. Parce que les travaux de légitimation tendent à banaliser un pouvoir qui doit rester l’objet de discussions, il n’est même pas souhaitable que la question soit résolue / Why should nine unelected judges be able to disregard the will of elected officials accountable to the people ? The main criticism against judicial review highlights its anti-democratic dimension since democracy has long been defined by reference to the majoritarian principle. In the United States, this countermajoritarian difficulty is particularly accentuated in light of the origins of judicial review. This research does not aim to solve the countermajoritarian difficulty, which is in fact unsolvable. The goal is rather to study how the countermajoritarian criticism deployed itself in the course of American history and continues to operate today, to analyze the structural factors explaining the salience of the debate and to consider whether the difficulty can be put into perspective. A careful analysis of the Supreme Court’s case law reveals its majoritarian dimension, in the sense that the Court’s decisions tend to reflect the state of public opinion. Between the «noble dream» of a Court heroically protecting minority rights, and the « nightmare » of a Court tyrannically imposing its will, there is a space in which the reality of the actions of the Court can be analyzed. The evidence of a correlation between public opinion and the Supreme Court paves the way for a more realistic assessment of judicial review and reinforces the need to escape from formalistic modes of reasoning. However, this relativization of the countermajoritarian difficulty does not amount to a resolution of the difficulty. In fact, it is because legitimating efforts tend to normalize a power which should remain a source of discussion that it is ultimately not desirable that the question be solved

The 1980s witnessed a judicial “rights revolution” in Canada characterized by the Supreme Court of Canada striking down both federal and provincial legislation which violated the rights guaranteed by the 1982 Charter of Rights. The lack of a similar judicial “rights revolution” in the wake of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights has largely been attributed to the structural difference between the two instruments with the latter – as a “mere” statute of the federal parliament – providing little more than a canon of construction and (unlike the Charter) not empowering the courts to engage in judicial review of legislation. Yet this view contrasts starkly with how the Bill was portrayed by the Diefenbaker government, which argued that it provided for judicial review and would “prevail” over other federal legislation. Many modern scholars have dismissed the idea that the Bill could prevail over other federal statutes as being incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. That is, a bill of rights could only prevail over legislation if incorporated into the British North America Act. As such, they argue that the Diefenbaker government could not have intended the Bill of Rights to operate as anything more than a canon of construction. However, such a view ignores the turbulence in constitutional thinking on parliamentary sovereignty in the 1930s through 1960s provoked by the Statute of Westminster. This era produced the doctrine of “self-embracing” sovereignty – in contrast to traditional “Dicey” sovereignty – where parliament could limit itself through “ordinary” legislation. The effective author of the Canadian Bill of Rights, Elmer Driedger, was an adherent of this doctrine as well as an advocate of a “purposive” approach to statutory interpretation. Driedger, thus, drafted the Bill based upon the doctrine of self-embracing sovereignty and believed it would enjoy a “purposive” interpretation by the courts, with the Bill designed to be as effective at guaranteeing rights as the Statute of Westminster was at liberating Canada from Imperial legislation.