A preocupação com a inclusão social da pessoa com deficiência é crescente. Especificamente quanto ao deficiente auditivo, o rol normativo está em desenvolvimento, porém ainda não supre todas as necessidades da sociedade. No contexto do serviço de implante coclear o Centro de Pesquisas Audiológicas (CPA) do Hospital de Reabilitação de Anomalias Craniofaciais (HRAC) da Universidade de São Paulo (USP), popularmente conhecido como Centrinho, que já realizou mais de 1.500 cirurgias de implante coclear (IC), constatou-se um grupo de pacientes implantados que não realizam a (re)habilitação auditiva por meio da terapia fonoaudiológica após a cirurgia do IC, ou ainda, não respeitam a periodicidade desse processo, comprometendo o desenvolvimento do deficiente auditivo. A falta ou negligência com o processo de terapia fonoaudiológica da (re)habilitação auditiva enseja na consequente violação de direitos fundamentais do deficiente. Toda equipe interdisciplinar de profissionais responsáveis pela indicação e adaptação do IC assumem papel fundamental no processo de (re)habilitação do deficiente auditivo, devendo acima de tudo zelar pela ética e humanização com o paciente e seus familiares. Como o IC é de elevado custo (tecnologias duras) incluso no procedimento de alta complexidade contemplado pelo Sistema Único de Saúde quem paga é a própria sociedade (através dos recursos públicos), por esse motivo é fundamental que o beneficiário dessa intervenção não apenas reivindique seus direitos, mas também cumpra com seus deveres. Apesar dos recentes avanços normativos do IC, a regulamentação existente é vulnerável frente à complexidade do processo de habilitação e reabilitação auditiva por meio do IC, deixando margem para violações, omissões e abusos. Diante desse cenário todos acabam sendo prejudicados, o Estado, a sociedade e o próprio beneficiário da prótese auditiva. O escopo do presente estudo é analisar criticamente o panorama jurídico em nível nacional das regulamentações voltadas ao implante coclear no processo de (re)habilitação auditiva. Os materiais e métodos utilizados serão os de levantamento bibliográfico, jurídico-doutrinário e revisão jurídica. / Concern about the social inclusion of people with disabilities is growing. Specifically regarding the hearing impaired, the normative roll is in development, but it still does not supply all the needs of society. In the context of the cochlear implant service, the Center for Audiological Research (CAR) of the Hospital of Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies (HRCA) of the University of São Paulo (USP), popularly known as Centrinho, which has already performed more than 1,500 cochlear implant surgeries, a group of implanted patients who did not perform auditory (re)habilitation by means of phonaudiologic therapy after cochlear implant surgery were found, or did not respect the periodicity of this process, compromising the development of the hearing impaired. Failure or negligence with the audiological (re)habilitation process leads to a consequent violation of the fundamental rights of the handicapped. Every interdisciplinary team of professionals responsible for the indication and adaptation of the cochlear implant assume a fundamental role in the process of (re) habilitation of the hearing impaired, and above all must care for the ethics and humanization with the patient and their relatives. Since the cochlear implant is of high cost hard technologies included in the procedure of high complexity contemplated by the Unified Health System who pays is the company itself (through public resources), for this reason it is fundamental that the beneficiary of this intervention not only claim their rights, but also fulfill your duties. Despite the recent normative advances in the cochlear implant, the existing regulations are vulnerable to the complexity of the process of habilitation and auditory rehabilitation through the cochlear implant, leaving room for violations, omissions and abuse. Faced with this scenario, all of them end up being harmed, the State, society and the beneficiary of the hearing aid itself. The scope of the present study is to critically analyze the legal framework at the national level of the regulations aimed at the cochlear implant in the (re)habilitation process. The materials and methods used will be those of bibliographical, legal-doctrinal and legal review.

A preocupação com a inclusão social da pessoa com deficiência é crescente. Especificamente quanto ao deficiente auditivo, o rol normativo está em desenvolvimento, porém ainda não supre todas as necessidades da sociedade. No contexto do serviço de implante coclear o Centro de Pesquisas Audiológicas (CPA) do Hospital de Reabilitação de Anomalias Craniofaciais (HRAC) da Universidade de São Paulo (USP), popularmente conhecido como Centrinho, que já realizou mais de 1.500 cirurgias de implante coclear (IC), constatou-se um grupo de pacientes implantados que não realizam a (re)habilitação auditiva por meio da terapia fonoaudiológica após a cirurgia do IC, ou ainda, não respeitam a periodicidade desse processo, comprometendo o desenvolvimento do deficiente auditivo. A falta ou negligência com o processo de terapia fonoaudiológica da (re)habilitação auditiva enseja na consequente violação de direitos fundamentais do deficiente. Toda equipe interdisciplinar de profissionais responsáveis pela indicação e adaptação do IC assumem papel fundamental no processo de (re)habilitação do deficiente auditivo, devendo acima de tudo zelar pela ética e humanização com o paciente e seus familiares. Como o IC é de elevado custo (tecnologias duras) incluso no procedimento de alta complexidade contemplado pelo Sistema Único de Saúde quem paga é a própria sociedade (através dos recursos públicos), por esse motivo é fundamental que o beneficiário dessa intervenção não apenas reivindique seus direitos, mas também cumpra com seus deveres. Apesar dos recentes avanços normativos do IC, a regulamentação existente é vulnerável frente à complexidade do processo de habilitação e reabilitação auditiva por meio do IC, deixando margem para violações, omissões e abusos. Diante desse cenário todos acabam sendo prejudicados, o Estado, a sociedade e o próprio beneficiário da prótese auditiva. O escopo do presente estudo é analisar criticamente o panorama jurídico em nível nacional das regulamentações voltadas ao implante coclear no processo de (re)habilitação auditiva. Os materiais e métodos utilizados serão os de levantamento bibliográfico, jurídico-doutrinário e revisão jurídica. / Concern about the social inclusion of people with disabilities is growing. Specifically regarding the hearing impaired, the normative roll is in development, but it still does not supply all the needs of society. In the context of the cochlear implant service, the Center for Audiological Research (CAR) of the Hospital of Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies (HRCA) of the University of São Paulo (USP), popularly known as Centrinho, which has already performed more than 1,500 cochlear implant surgeries, a group of implanted patients who did not perform auditory (re)habilitation by means of phonaudiologic therapy after cochlear implant surgery were found, or did not respect the periodicity of this process, compromising the development of the hearing impaired. Failure or negligence with the audiological (re)habilitation process leads to a consequent violation of the fundamental rights of the handicapped. Every interdisciplinary team of professionals responsible for the indication and adaptation of the cochlear implant assume a fundamental role in the process of (re) habilitation of the hearing impaired, and above all must care for the ethics and humanization with the patient and their relatives. Since the cochlear implant is of high cost hard technologies included in the procedure of high complexity contemplated by the Unified Health System who pays is the company itself (through public resources), for this reason it is fundamental that the beneficiary of this intervention not only claim their rights, but also fulfill your duties. Despite the recent normative advances in the cochlear implant, the existing regulations are vulnerable to the complexity of the process of habilitation and auditory rehabilitation through the cochlear implant, leaving room for violations, omissions and abuse. Faced with this scenario, all of them end up being harmed, the State, society and the beneficiary of the hearing aid itself. The scope of the present study is to critically analyze the legal framework at the national level of the regulations aimed at the cochlear implant in the (re)habilitation process. The materials and methods used will be those of bibliographical, legal-doctrinal and legal review.

This thesis analyses police officers' work with internal control of foreigners through a discussion of, among other things, the nation-state, rule of law ideals as well as the police profession and the conditions surrounding that profession. Internal control of foreigners, practised by police officers has two main aims: to control migration and to fight crime amongst people unauthorised to reside in the country. There has been a demand for increased efficiency in the internal control of foreigners, since Sweden joined the Schengen agreement. Police officers are now expected to be observant in all their work carried out, of the possibility that people they encounter are in the country without permission. The authors have accompanied police officers in Malmö and Stockholm in their work. They have also studied cases in the legal system and of the special board that handles cases of offences made by police officers. The authors discuss the importance of different factors to the police work on internal control of foreigners. Certain factors are more important than others and there is an interplay and reinforcement of some of these: the political and historical context, the discretion of the police, grey areas in the rules, the work tools of the police as well as inspection possibilities. A state of tension can be identified between the ideals of the nation-state and rule of law ideals. Several factors interplay to create a potential for and an apparent risk of ethnic discrimination in the police work on the internal control of foreigners. This study shows that the prerequisites necessary to perform the control efficiently, unerringly and with proper discretion are lacking. Police officers are put to the almost impossible task of determining who is in the country without permission.

From the Proceedings of the 1978 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Assn. and the Hydrology Section - Arizona Academy of Science - April 14-15, 1978, Flagstaff, Arizona / The relationships between the separate disciplines of hydrology and law are analysed in this study into how water law and its strictures may impose upon the development of urban runoff in the metropolitan Tucson area. Brief descriptions of the doctrine of appropriation, diffuse surface waters and developed waters are presented to illustrate the complexities of the problem of urban runoff development. It is suggested that planners must not only be aware of the legal issues involved but also must understand the philosophy and principles of water law.

La distinction du fait et du droit est une problématique centrale dansl’organisation des voies de droit. Elle exerce en effet, au-delà d’une variété de formes et designifications, une influence décisive sur l’office du juge ainsi que sur la fonction desautorités soumises à son contrôle. Pour appréhender pleinement la portée qu’elle revêt dansl’équilibre des pouvoirs établi par la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, il est nécessairede se défaire de toute préconception de la distinction du fait et du droit (notamment auregard des pratiques observées en droit interne), afin de comprendre comment le juge del’Union européenne exerce un pouvoir de détermination à son égard, que ce soit dans lecontrôle de validité des actes juridiques ou dans les voies de recours dirigées contre desactes juridictionnels. Dans cette opération, elle reste toutefois soucieuse d’assurerl’acceptabilité de ses décisions, et prend donc en considération certaines contraintesjuridiques qui se présentent à elle dans son office. Autorité normatrice et ordonnatrice, laCour de justice en tant qu’interprète authentique utilise en réalité la distinction du fait et dudroit comme un instrument de répartition des compétences entre les différents acteursconcernés par la réalisation du droit de l’Union européenne. Elle définit ainsi, à travers ladétermination de la distinction du fait et du droit dans chacune de ses manifestations,l’habilitation que leur confère le système juridique. En ce sens, elle apparaît comme lajuridiction suprême de cet espace normatif. / The distinction between fact and law is central to the organization of remedies.It exerts, through its variety of forms and meanings, a decisive influence on the Court and onthe function of the authorities that the former reviews. In order to fully grasp its significance inthe balance of power that the European Court of Justice has established, one has to discardany preconception related to the distinction between fact and law (especially those present inmunicipal law). This in turn leads to the understanding of the manner in which the EuropeanCourt specifies the distinction, should it concern the review against legal acts or the ways ofchallenging case law. Whilst doing this, the European Court remains wary of the acceptabilityof its decisions, thus taking into account several legal constraints. As a normative authorityand as the authentic interpreter, the European Court of Justice uses the distinction betweenfact and law as a way to divide the competences of the actors concerned with theimplementation of EU law. By performing this specification, it defines the way the legalsystem entitles these actors. In this way, the European Court of Justice emerges as theSupreme Court of this normative space.