This article releases of Constitutional Interpretation No.613 of Grand Justices, Judicial Yuan.Discussion jurisdiction and legislative power of separation of power boundary.Judicial review since U.S.A.'s Marbury v.s Madison case is developed in 1803 .Safeguards the people's basic right not the illegal violation.The most countries introduces for the world. Grand Justices enjoy the good name of ¡§the constitution protector¡¨.Is only short of the public opinion to be authorized and counter-majoritarian diffculty, Causes the democratic validity to be subject to the question, between ¡§the judicature is positive¡¨ and ¡§the judicature is negative¡¨,it is become Judicial review development mechanism the important topic. Administration, legislation and judicial is also known as trias politica, Performing its own functions, doctrine of separation of powers for most important constitutional government principle, The Congress direct gathering people meaning indicated that.Is on behalf of the Popular Sovereignty for State agency, three read through the law, suffers unexpectedly declares invalid, and has the abstract standard potency, sends the Judicial review from ¡§the constitutional interpreter¡¨ to become ¡§the legislator¡¨ or ¡§framers of constitution¡¨ the negative appraisal. This article advocated that the Judicial review should distinguish the people's basic right or the pure institution in advance disputes and so on, is safeguarding the people's basic right case, should involve positively, being suitable of the non-judicial self-restraint principle. The Judicial review should not take the doctrine of political question the separation of power the only boundary, should accumulate the case type, develops standard of the difference, avoids fording into the pure institution jurisdiction dispute. Constitutional Interpretation article should not ¡§the legalization¡¨, be supposed to establish the mechanism of ¡§retires after meritorious service¡¨.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2016-09-27T12:21:05Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Luciana Zanchetta Oliver.pdf: 803892 bytes, checksum: f397a1b37a8fa34821c909a412326efa (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-09-27T12:21:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Luciana Zanchetta Oliver.pdf: 803892 bytes, checksum: f397a1b37a8fa34821c909a412326efa (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-06-15 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / The goal of this study is to question the consolidation of judicial activism in Brasil verifying if the decisions made by the courts are in accordance to the constitution and modern social values. For that, we need to verify the limits of the judiciary power based on constitutional principles, the separation of powers and democratic ideals. This dissertation points out that the activism is pertinent and consolidated, once the Judiciary Power is accountable for ceasing omission, evaluating and correcting the mistakes made by the Legislative and Executive powers when they occur. The research shows that despite the legality of the activism, it must be applied with responsibility and moderation protecting social rights and equally protecting the Democratic State / O estudo tem por objetivo investigar a consolidação do ativismo judicial no Brasil, verificando se as decisões proferidas pelos Tribunais têm observado a vontade do constituinte originário e se estão adequadas com os valores sociais hodiernos. Para tanto, busca-se verificar os limites do Poder Judiciário à luz dos princípios constitucionais da Separação dos Poderes e do ideal Democrático. A dissertação aponta que o ativismo se mostra pertinente e está consolidado, uma vez que incumbe ao Poder Judiciário sanar omissões, avaliar e corrigir atos proferidos pelo Poder Executivo e pelo Poder Legislativo, porventura eivados de vícios. A pesquisa demonstra também que o ativismo, embora legítimo, deve ser praticado com responsabilidade e ponderação, fazendo prevalecer os direitos sociais em consonância com a preservação do Estado Democrático de Direito

Judicial self-restraint in the judicature of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Abstract The thesis deals with the role of the judicial self-restraint in the judicature of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. Besides the theoretical definitions is the pivotal part of the thesis practical section that is focused on the analysis of pre-selected decisions of the Constitutional Court with respect to the judicial self-restraint. The first chapter contains definition of the theory of separation of powers as basis for the judicial self-restraint and its subcategories. Part of this chapter is oriented at the judicial power itself, which is crucial for the thesis. The second chapter provides definitions of key concepts - principal of judicial self-restraint, priority of the constitutionally conformal interpretation, political question doctrine and judicial activism, as it is called. These concepts are defined from the points of view of the angloamerican legal system as well as czech legal system. In the second chapter are also stated possible factors that may lead to the judicial activism and to the judiciary state, as it is called. The chapter afterwards describes the judicial interpretation and application of law in the context of the judicial self-restraint and provides relevant historical...