[pt] O debate em torno da legitimidade da jurisdição constitucional em detrimento da vontade majoritária, que o Legislativo representa, tem sido objeto de estudo no direito nacional e estrangeiro. No Brasil, a expansão da jurisdição constitucional preocupa estudiosos do tema que vêem no protagonismo do Supremo Tribunal Federal riscos ao processo democrático. Neste cenário, a busca pela efetividade da Constituição, a judicialização dos direitos e as novas ameaças enfrentadas pelas sociedades contemporâneas, conferem ao Judiciário um papel ainda mais proeminente. Através do estudo de casos e da análise de alguns ordenamentos estrangeiros, a presente dissertação examina o fenômeno da correção legislativa de decisão judicial, como um meio capaz de equilibrar a sensível relação entre esses dois Poderes e restabelecer a harmonia do processo decisório constitucional. / [en] The debate about the legitimacy of judicial review to frustrate the majority s will as expressed by a democratically elected legislature has been the object of study and criticism in both national and foreign Law. In Brazil, some scholars argue that the expansion of the Supreme Court s judicial review power may undermind the democratic process itself. In this scenario, the search for effectiveness of the Constitution, the judicialization of rights and the new threats faced by contemporary societies, give the Judiciary a more prominent role. Through case studies and an analysis of foreign legal systems, this thesis examines the overrides of Supreme Court decisions by Legislature as a mean through which the equilibrium between the Judicial and Legislative branches are rebalanced and harmonized within the constitutional decision-making process.

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.

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.

Submitted by Cristiane Marly dos Santos Segatto (cristiane.segatto@gmail.com) on 2018-06-20T22:40:02Z No. of bitstreams: 1 CRISTIANE SEGATTO TA pós banca_Revisado+Ficha Catalográfica.pdf: 546206 bytes, checksum: 25ef79aa4a12628e73ff9799a2754691 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Simone de Andrade Lopes Pires (simone.lopes@fgv.br) on 2018-06-21T21:20:08Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 CRISTIANE SEGATTO TA pós banca_Revisado+Ficha Catalográfica.pdf: 546206 bytes, checksum: 25ef79aa4a12628e73ff9799a2754691 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Isabele Garcia (isabele.garcia@fgv.br) on 2018-06-22T17:35:35Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 CRISTIANE SEGATTO TA pós banca_Revisado+Ficha Catalográfica.pdf: 546206 bytes, checksum: 25ef79aa4a12628e73ff9799a2754691 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-06-22T17:35:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 CRISTIANE SEGATTO TA pós banca_Revisado+Ficha Catalográfica.pdf: 546206 bytes, checksum: 25ef79aa4a12628e73ff9799a2754691 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 / Este trabalho buscou registrar a percepção sobre o fenômeno da judicialização da saúde declarada pelos dez juízes de primeira instância que mais obrigaram o Estado de São Paulo a atender demandas de saúde entre os anos de 2005 e 2017. O objetivo geral da pesquisa foi apontar se esses magistrados conhecem e consideram em suas decisões a Lei nº 12.401/11, segundo a qual a dispensação de medicamentos no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) deve respeitar protocolos clínicos para a doença ou ser feita com base nas relações de medicamentos instituídas pelos gestores. Para se chegar aos nomes desses dez juízes, uma solicitação formal de levantamento de dados foi encaminhada à Coordenação das Demandas Estratégicas do SUS (Codes), instância responsável pela gestão das demandas judiciais na Secretaria de Estado da Saúde de São Paulo (SES-SP). Foram entrevistados sete magistrados (70% da amostra pretendida) entre o início de dezembro de 2017 e o final de março de 2018. Todos os entrevistados atuam ou atuaram em municípios do interior paulista com alto índice de judicialização da saúde. No total, eles proferiram 8.380 decisões favoráveis aos demandantes. Cinco dos sete entrevistados afirmaram não considerar a Lei nº 12.401/11 em suas decisões. Dois declararam que, 'em regra', a consideram e, apenas em casos pontuais, concedem medicamentos e procedimentos que não constam nas listas estabelecidas pelos gestores. Nenhum dos juízes tem formação em Direito Sanitário, mas todos declararam se sentir preparados para julgar demandas de saúde. Quatro afirmaram confiar plenamente nos relatórios médicos anexados às ações e presumir a boa-fé dos profissionais de saúde. Cinco participantes acreditam que a judicialização da saúde melhora o SUS. A maioria não busca apoio técnico especializado antes de decidir sobre as demandas ou afirmou que, ao tentar fazê-lo, não encontrou recursos organizados e confiáveis. A amostra reduzida é uma das limitações deste trabalho. Ainda assim, o registro detalhado das percepções e práticas declaradas pelos magistrados, um recurso raramente acessível à sociedade, pode ser uma contribuição para que os gestores repensem estratégias para lidar com as demandas judiciais. A excessiva judicialização da saúde é uma grande preocupação tanto para o setor público, quanto para o privado. Ela pode afetar negativamente a competitividade de organizações como as operadoras de planos de saúde e até comprometer a existência de algumas delas. Este trabalho limitou-se ao exame da realidade do setor público que, por sua vez, também compete com o setor privado na prestação de serviços de saúde. / This paper aimed to register the perception about the health judicialization phenomenon declared by the ten first instance judges who most obliged the State of São Paulo to meet health demands between 2005 and 2017. The general objective of the research was to determine if these magistrates know and consider in their decisions Law 12,401 / 11, according to which the dispensation of medicines in the Unified Health System (SUS) must respect clinical protocols for the disease or be made based on lists of medicines instituted by managers. In order to reach the names of these ten judges, a formal request for data collection was sent to SUS Coordination of Strategic Claims (Codes), the body responsible for the management of legal claims at the State Health Department of São Paulo (SES-SP). Seven judges (70% of the intended sample) were interviewed between the beginning of December 2017 and the end of March 2018. All the interviewees work in or worked in municipalities in the interior of São Paulo with a high index of health judicialization. In total, they made 8,380 decisions favorable to the plaintiffs. Five of the seven interviewees stated that they did not consider Law 12.401 / 11 in their decisions. Two stated that, "as a rule", consider it and only in specific cases grant medicines and procedures that are not on the lists established by the managers. None of the judges are trained in Sanitary Law, but all have declared themselves prepared to judge health claims. Four said they fully trusted the medical reports attached to the lawsuits and assumed the good faith of health professionals. Five participants believe that the judicialization of health improves SUS. Most do not seek expert technical support before deciding on the demands or stated that in trying to do so, they did not find organized and reliable resources. The reduced sample is one of the limitations of this work. Even so, a detailed register about the perceptions and practices declared by the magistrates, a resource rarely accessible to society, can contribute to managers rethinking strategies to deal with judicial demands. The excessive judicialization of health is a major concern for both the public and private sectors. It can negatively affect the competitiveness of organizations such as health insurance companies and even compromise the existence of some of them. This work was limited to examining the reality of the public sector, which, in turn, also competes with the private sector for the provision of health services.

The thesis focuses on the accounting and tax perspective of employee benefits. The opening section of the work contains basic definitions of terms related to renumeration of employees and describes legal regulations of benefits especially within the Labour Code and Act on Income Tax. The part dedicated to tax solution of employee benefits examines possibilities of tax optimization for employees and employers. Further it includes also an analysis of judicial decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court related to tax disputes between the tax authorities and employers. The final part focuses on comparison of financial reporting according to the International Accounting Standards specifically IAS 19 and Czech accounting legislation.

La sentence est une notion complexe qui partage différentes caractéristiques avec le contrat, l’acte juridictionnel ou la décision de justice. En effet, la nature juridictionnelle de la sentence est aujourd’hui admise, mais en raison de son origine conventionnelle, elle demeure un acte privé. Ainsi, son régime d’acte juridictionnel est-Il modifié par un élément conventionnel – dès la désignation des arbitres appelés à rendre la sentence jusqu’à son exécution. L’étude du droit comparé montre que la notion et le régime de la sentence sont différemment appréciés en droit français et russe – tout est question d’interprétation des critères de qualification, bien qu’ils s’avèrent être les mêmes. Ainsi, convient-Il de faire ressortir ces différences à travers l’étude de la notion de la sentence et de son régime dans les deux ordres juridiques, sauf à démontrer que l’une et l’autre contribuent à la préservation du caractère particulier de la sentence qui ne peut et ne doit pas être assimilée, en définitive, à une décision de justice. / The arbitral award is a complex legal notion, sharing characteristics with the contract, the jurisdictional act and the judicial decision. Indeed, the jurisdictional dimension of the arbitral award has now been admitted, though, because of its contractual source, it is still considered as a private legal act. The legal regime of this jurisdictional act is therefore influenced by a contractual bias – as from the arbitrators’ appointment up to the enforcement of the arbitral award. A comparative approach shows that the arbitral award’s notion and legal regime are differently considered in French and Russian laws. The differences lie mainly in the interpretation of the legal qualification criteria, though the latter are similar in the two legal systems. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the said differences through the study of the arbitral award’s notion and legal regime in French and Russian laws, which might lead to consider that the specificity of the arbitral award should be preserved instead of considering the award as a judicial decision.

The dissertation critically examines and compares the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the High Courts in cases dealing with the right to life, as contained in section 11 of the Constitution of South Africa Act 108 of 1996. The dissertation analysis the issues of adjudication and the concept of justice in perspective. The main question is as follows: Are the Constitutional Court decisions objective, based on the interpretation of the constitutional text, or do they rather reflect the individual judge(s) personal perspective(s) or preference(s). The purpose of this dissertation is to undertake a comparative study and analysis of the Constitutional Court decisions on the right to life, same aspect from different perspective, and show that the right to life is not given proper effect to on account of the subjective approach to its interpretation undertaken by the judges. It examines and scrutinises the Constitutional Court’s adjudication process. It found that the law is indeterminable, because the court’s decisions are not based on the interpretation of the law, but on the individual judges’ background and personal preferences. This is so because the court uses the majority rule principle in its decisions: The perception of the majority of the judges becomes a decision of the court. It is argued that when taking a decision a judge does not apply the law but instead uses the law to justify his predetermined decision on the matter. The conclusion supports the critical legal scholars’ theory relating to the indeterminacy of the law. It tests the objectivity of the judges using their own previous decisions. / Criminal & Procedural Law / LLM

The dissertation critically examines and compares the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the High Courts in cases dealing with the right to life, as contained in section 11 of the Constitution of South Africa Act 108 of 1996. The dissertation analysis the issues of adjudication and the concept of justice in perspective. The main question is as follows: Are the Constitutional Court decisions objective, based on the interpretation of the constitutional text, or do they rather reflect the individual judge(s) personal perspective(s) or preference(s). The purpose of this dissertation is to undertake a comparative study and analysis of the Constitutional Court decisions on the right to life, same aspect from different perspective, and show that the right to life is not given proper effect to on account of the subjective approach to its interpretation undertaken by the judges. It examines and scrutinises the Constitutional Court’s adjudication process. It found that the law is indeterminable, because the court’s decisions are not based on the interpretation of the law, but on the individual judges’ background and personal preferences. This is so because the court uses the majority rule principle in its decisions: The perception of the majority of the judges becomes a decision of the court. It is argued that when taking a decision a judge does not apply the law but instead uses the law to justify his predetermined decision on the matter. The conclusion supports the critical legal scholars’ theory relating to the indeterminacy of the law. It tests the objectivity of the judges using their own previous decisions. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL. M.

[pt] Esta dissertação analisa a relação entre os paradigmas argumentativo e regulatório no contexto da reforma do Estado brasileiro, que teve início desde a promulgação da Constituição da República de 1988. O desenvolvimento de teorias da argumentação jurídica no segundo pósguerra aponta para a necessidade de uma metodologia jurídica baseada numa racionalidade argumentativa, quer seja nos moldes aristotélicos, conforme proposto por Chaïm Perelman, quer seja na dimensão procedimentalista da argumentação jurídica, apontada por Jürgen Habermas e Robert Alexy. Ambas as perspectivas evidenciam o papel dos princípios gerais do direito, com a motivação de todas as decisões públicas. De igual forma, a crise de legitimação da administração pública coloca em relevo a necessidade premente de participação nas decisões públicas, fortalecendo a importância da noção de espaço público e de eficiência. Tais decisões, tomadas com base em critérios de razoabilidade, necessitam de uma atividade acentuada de justificação, que permita à participação alcançar um ponto ótimo. A busca por uma administração pública legítima, eficiente e participativa relaciona-se com a necessidade de publicizar o discurso dos agentes administrativos, o que é assegurado mediante um uso argumentativo da razão. Assim, o modelo regulatório, em vias de implantação, deve- se levar em conta os princípios argumentativos e a parceria social. O imperativo da legitimidade é o ponto de interseção entre os dois paradigmas, onde o administrador público pode começar a construção de uma ação mais compromissada e ética. / [en] This dissertation analyse the relationships between the paradigms argumentative and regulatory in the context of the brazilian State reformation, since 1988 s Constitution. The argumentation theories development is related to the judicial methodology based on argumentative rationality, or in the Aristotelian forms, as proposed by Chaïm Perelman, or in the procedural dimension, as Jürgen Habermas and Robert Alexy defend. Both perspectives increase the role of the law general principles, motivating all public decisions. In the same way, the crisis of the public administration legitimacy put in scene the very need of participation in the public decisions, increasing the public space strength and the efficiency of the State. These decisions are taken according to notions as proporcionality. The search for a legitimate, efficient and participatory public administration is related to the need of publicizing the administrative agents discourses, wich is assured by argumentative use of reason. Therefore, in the regulatory model, wich is being established, must be take account of the argumentatives principles and social partnership. The legitimacy imperative is the intersection point between the two paradigms, were the public administrator can start the building of an action more compromised and ethical.

European Arrest Warrant is an institute of the police and judicial cooperation in the criminal matters. Based is on the mutual confidence of Member States in its legal systems. His formation was caused not only by the failed ratification of the international agreements governing extradition, but also by the terrorist attacks occurred on 11 September 2001 in New York. European Arrest Warrant meant the breakthrough into the national traditional sovereignty of Member States and that all to ensure the area of freedom, safety and justice inside Europe. Formation of the European Arrest Warrant led to the restriction of some principles, which dominated to the extradition, when between the most important ones belongs the principle of surrender of own citizens. European Arrest Warrant is the necessary means and tool of police and judicial bodies in the fight against the national and multinational crime, whose use rises year from year.