Communities of practice that occur naturally within an organisation enable the members to learn through participation in practice together (Lave & Wenger, 1991). However, when a community lacks expertise in 21st century practices, learning these skills through shared practice becomes difficult. E-learning is often marketed as if the tools were easy to adopt and adapt, but effective professional development is required to support educators in learning to employ e-learning tools in their practice. Research shows that effective professional development is timely, relevant, flexible, and often collaborative in nature with examples of good practice. The research presented in this thesis describes the design and implementation of professional development which supports a community of practitioners in building the expertise to incorporate e-learning within its professional practice. The research was informed by a comprehensive review of literature on professional development, with a focus on the area of e-learning, the theory behind the communities of practice concept, and the application of that theory. A design-based methodology was employed to gather data from a range of sources of evidence, over two years, in four iterative cycles of collaborative design, implementation, evaluation and redesign. The context in which the research took place was a small educational organisation with an average of twenty staff members over the duration of the study. This staged implementation of an online environment, designed in collaboration with the community, supported the development of a blended community of online practice and provided timely, relevant professional development in e-learning. Analysis of the research findings produced two instruments: (1) a matrix of strategies for enabling and supporting the development of a blended community of online practice, and (2) a heuristic model to guide the investigation of the learning taking place within the online aspect of a blended community of online practice. These instruments are recommended to designers, developers or researchers supporting the development of a blended community of online practice and the professional development taking place in its online environment.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; 2016), contingent faculty comprise nearly half of the higher education teaching workforce. I was a contingent faculty member working in a music teacher preparation program at a small college in the Northeast U.S. Using Wenger’s communities of practice (1998) and Lave and Wenger’s legitimate peripheral participation (1991) as a theoretical lens, I conducted a self-study to understand: (a) how our group of two full-time and two part-time contingent faculty negotiated our work, and (b) how my contingent faculty identity was shaped through participating in the group. I analyzed transcriptions of group meetings, email messages sent among the group members, and brief interviews to establish that our community of practice (CoP) was positioned relative to broader enterprises, such as accrediting bodies and the state department of education that regulated teacher licensure. We negotiated our practices in response to their standards and regulations, and we often felt that our practices were constrained. I learned that the members of our CoP had rich histories of membership in other CoPs, and knowledge and identity from those CoPs were constantly reconciled with new understandings and identity. I learned that multimembership can be a hindrance for some, yet it can also be a benefit that helps propel the work of a CoP forward. My identity was shaped through dialogue with other members of the community. I learned that it is common for contingent faculty to feel as I did: autonomous and competent in my teaching practices, yet detached from the department (Kezar & Sam, 2010; Levin & Hernandez, 2014; Shaker, 2008). Learning some of the history of the joint enterprise helped me feel more connected and empowered, and as my dialogue with the full-time tenure-track faculty continued, I was given additional responsibility for developing and subsequently teaching two new courses. Very little research has been conducted from the perspective of contingent faculty in higher education. This self-study was therefore a timely addition to the literature, and it should be replicated, extended to other teacher education faculty, and also to collaborative self-studies between full-time and contingent faculty.

A classificação dual retroatividade própria e imprópria é inadequada e insuficiente para retratar o fenômeno que, na realidade, ocorre em relação à retroatividade. Ela está baseada no critério formal e objetivo da completude de requisitos normativos configuradores de certos fatos jurídicos: direito adquirido, ato jurídico perfeito, coisa julgada e fato gerador. Atos estatais que, no presente e no futuro, atingem restritivamente essas categorias consumadas no passado causariam retroatividade própria; atos estatais que, no presente e no futuro, as atingem restritivamente quando elas ainda estão em desenvolvimento causariam retroatividade imprópria. Contudo, a retroatividade dos atos estatais é, essencialmente, um problema não de consumação de fatos jurídicos, mas de disposição de direitos por parte do cidadão. Nesse ponto, o critério decisivo para definir se um ato estatal é retroativo deve ser, primordialmente, a restrição do exercício passado, irreversível e juridicamente orientado da liberdade e da propriedade. No Direito brasileiro, a irretroatividade teve seu sentido prático reduzido. Grande parte das decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre o tema limitam a proteção do indivíduo somente às hipóteses enunciadas pelos arts. 5.º, XXXVI, e 150, III, “a”, da CF/88. Contudo, a reconstrução argumentativa da irretroatividade na CF/88 demonstra que ela é norma jurídica que está fundamentada não apenas nesses dispositivos constitucionais. Seu fundamento indireto a conecta materialmente por fundamentação por suporte e por justificação recíproca com: o Estado de Direito; a liberdade jurídica; a dignidade humana; a liberdade econômica; a propriedade; a igualdade; a segurança jurídica em toda a sua inteireza; a moralidade; e a legalidade. A irretroatividade assume as qualidades normativas de regra jurídica (fundamentada nos arts. 5.º, XXXVI, e 150, III, “a”, da CF/88) e de princípio jurídico geral de Direito Constitucional (fundamentado materialmente nas normas jurídicas antes mencionadas). Irretroatividade significa a proibição de que os atos estatais dos três Poderes de Estado estabeleçam consequências mais gravosas, relativamente à disciplina anterior, aos atos de disposição de direitos fundamentais realizados antes da sua entrada em vigor. No Direito Tributário, as dimensões normativas da irretroatividade são aplicáveis em razão da abertura do subsistema das limitações ao poder de tributar. A proteção do contribuinte não está restrita, portanto, à regra reconduzida ao art. 150, III, “a”, da CF/88. Quanto a essa regra, a expressão fato gerador ocorrido deve ser entendida como eventos por meio dos quais os contribuintes completaram o comportamento necessário à realização do fato gerador previsto pela norma tributária de incidência. O princípio da irretroatividade material, por sua vez, atua sob a influência dos seguintes critérios principais: proteção da confiança e segurança jurídica em seu sentido objetivo; restrição ao exercício de direitos fundamentais; e atuação estatal mediante atos adequados, necessários e moderados com relação às mudanças normativas por eles provocadas. O referido princípio é aplicado no âmbito normativo não coberto pelas regras da irretroatividade acima referidas. A irretroatividade-princípio estabelece exigências e critérios para criação de atos estatais e para interpretação e aplicação do Direito, de tal modo que esses atos sejam preservadores do exercício passado da liberdade. Sua aplicação pode implicar ou não necessidade de ponderação horizontal em face das normas que suportam as finalidades estatais visadas pelo ato retroativo. Nesse ponto, se houver efetiva colisão entre princípios contrapostos, o princípio da irretroatividade pode, por razões excepcionais de maior peso relacionadas aos outros princípios jurídicos, ser afastado. A irretroatividade apresenta eficácia jurídica limitadora das manifestações estatais emitidas pelos Poderes Executivo e Legislativo. Atua, igualmente, nos casos de modificação dos precedentes por parte do Poder Judiciário. / To classify retroactivity into two categories – true and untrue - is inadequate and insufficient for the purpose to reveal the reality that occurs in relation to retroactivity (ex post facto law). This classification, based on formal and objective criteria, requires the presence of certain legal concepts: acquired right, accomplished juridical act, res judicata or the presence of a taxable event. State acts that, in present or future time, restrain legal facts that occurred in the past are known as true rectroactivity, whereas State acts that, in the present or future time, restrain legal facts when they’re still in development, are known as untrue rectroactivity. Nevertheless, retroactivity of State acts is, essentially, not an issue of consummation of legal facts, but, instead, one of individual rights and its protection. In this sense, the decisive criteria to determine if a State act is retroactive should be, primarily, the analysis of a past, irreversible, legally oriented exercise of an individual right and/or property right. As for the Brazilian legal system, the prohibition of retroactivity (ex post facto law) has, in a practical sense, been limited. Most of the Federal Supreme Court rulings on the subject limit the individual protection only to the cases mentioned on articles 5º, XXXVI and 150, III, “a”, of the Federal Constitution. However, the argumentative reconstruction of the prohibition of retroactivity clause, proves that its fundamentals are not only the two articles. Its indirect foundation is connected materially (by support or justification) to the Rule of Law, to human dignity, to economic freedom, to the right of property, to equality under the Law, to legal certainty, to morality, and to legality. The prohibition of retroactivity accepts the quality of being a legal provision (based on articles 5º, XXXVI and 150, III, “a”, of the Federal Constitution) and of a general Constitutional principle (based materially on the basic rights mentioned above). The prohibition of retroactivity (ex post fact law) means the interdiction for State acts (all three branches) that establish worse consequences, compared to previous legal situation, concerning fundamental rights present even before the enactment of the post fact law. In Tax Law, the different dimensions of the prohibition of retroactivity are applicable due to the openness of the constitutional subsystem (provisions that limit the power to tax). The protection of the taxpayers is not limited, therefore, to the provision of article 150, III, “a” of the Constitution. In respect to this article, the expression taxable event occurred needs to be interpreted as the events through which taxpayers complete the necessary conduct described by the tax provision. The prohibition of retroactivity principle, on the other hand, acts under the influence, mainly, of the following criteria: protection of trust and legal certainty, restriction over individual rights, adequate State intervention (necessary and moderate) with respect to changes in the legal system. The principle is applicable in areas not covered by the constitutional provisions above mentioned. The ex post fact law principle establishes requirements and criteria as to the creation of State acts and for the interpretation of the Law, in a way that these acts preserve the full exercise of past freedom. Its application might imply or not the need for deliberation regarding to the legal context that supports the retroactive act (and its proposed ends). In this context, if an effective collision of principles occurs, the prohibition of retroactivity principle can, due to exceptional reasons concerning other principles (deliberation), give place. The prohibition of retroactivity principle presents itself as a legal limitation for State acts, Executive and Legislative branches. It also acts in cases of reviewing of judicial precedents.

The offence of dangerous threatening pursuant to Section 353 of the Criminal Code Abstract This master thesis focuses on the detailed analysis and description of the criminal offence of dangerous threatening with the goal to evaluate the current legal regulation of this criminal offence. For this purpose, Czech and foreign sources were used. This master thesis is divided into five parts. The first part describes individual regulations which amended the criminal offence of dangerous threatening up to the present. In the second part, the misdemeanour of dangerous threatening is categorised from the point of view of seriousness and systematic nature of the Criminal Code. In addition, the specific features of the merits of the criminal offence are described with the focus on the possibility to raise legitimate concern. Last but not least, the individual terms which are included into the basic and qualified merit of the criminal offence are described. The third part is dedicated to the description of individual types of criminal penalties which can be imposed for the misdemeanour of dangerous threatening on adults, minors and legal entities. The main focus of this part is on the evaluation of the effectiveness of imposing individual penalties. In addition, the specific ways of expiration of the criminal...

A classificação dual retroatividade própria e imprópria é inadequada e insuficiente para retratar o fenômeno que, na realidade, ocorre em relação à retroatividade. Ela está baseada no critério formal e objetivo da completude de requisitos normativos configuradores de certos fatos jurídicos: direito adquirido, ato jurídico perfeito, coisa julgada e fato gerador. Atos estatais que, no presente e no futuro, atingem restritivamente essas categorias consumadas no passado causariam retroatividade própria; atos estatais que, no presente e no futuro, as atingem restritivamente quando elas ainda estão em desenvolvimento causariam retroatividade imprópria. Contudo, a retroatividade dos atos estatais é, essencialmente, um problema não de consumação de fatos jurídicos, mas de disposição de direitos por parte do cidadão. Nesse ponto, o critério decisivo para definir se um ato estatal é retroativo deve ser, primordialmente, a restrição do exercício passado, irreversível e juridicamente orientado da liberdade e da propriedade. No Direito brasileiro, a irretroatividade teve seu sentido prático reduzido. Grande parte das decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre o tema limitam a proteção do indivíduo somente às hipóteses enunciadas pelos arts. 5.º, XXXVI, e 150, III, “a”, da CF/88. Contudo, a reconstrução argumentativa da irretroatividade na CF/88 demonstra que ela é norma jurídica que está fundamentada não apenas nesses dispositivos constitucionais. Seu fundamento indireto a conecta materialmente por fundamentação por suporte e por justificação recíproca com: o Estado de Direito; a liberdade jurídica; a dignidade humana; a liberdade econômica; a propriedade; a igualdade; a segurança jurídica em toda a sua inteireza; a moralidade; e a legalidade. A irretroatividade assume as qualidades normativas de regra jurídica (fundamentada nos arts. 5.º, XXXVI, e 150, III, “a”, da CF/88) e de princípio jurídico geral de Direito Constitucional (fundamentado materialmente nas normas jurídicas antes mencionadas). Irretroatividade significa a proibição de que os atos estatais dos três Poderes de Estado estabeleçam consequências mais gravosas, relativamente à disciplina anterior, aos atos de disposição de direitos fundamentais realizados antes da sua entrada em vigor. No Direito Tributário, as dimensões normativas da irretroatividade são aplicáveis em razão da abertura do subsistema das limitações ao poder de tributar. A proteção do contribuinte não está restrita, portanto, à regra reconduzida ao art. 150, III, “a”, da CF/88. Quanto a essa regra, a expressão fato gerador ocorrido deve ser entendida como eventos por meio dos quais os contribuintes completaram o comportamento necessário à realização do fato gerador previsto pela norma tributária de incidência. O princípio da irretroatividade material, por sua vez, atua sob a influência dos seguintes critérios principais: proteção da confiança e segurança jurídica em seu sentido objetivo; restrição ao exercício de direitos fundamentais; e atuação estatal mediante atos adequados, necessários e moderados com relação às mudanças normativas por eles provocadas. O referido princípio é aplicado no âmbito normativo não coberto pelas regras da irretroatividade acima referidas. A irretroatividade-princípio estabelece exigências e critérios para criação de atos estatais e para interpretação e aplicação do Direito, de tal modo que esses atos sejam preservadores do exercício passado da liberdade. Sua aplicação pode implicar ou não necessidade de ponderação horizontal em face das normas que suportam as finalidades estatais visadas pelo ato retroativo. Nesse ponto, se houver efetiva colisão entre princípios contrapostos, o princípio da irretroatividade pode, por razões excepcionais de maior peso relacionadas aos outros princípios jurídicos, ser afastado. A irretroatividade apresenta eficácia jurídica limitadora das manifestações estatais emitidas pelos Poderes Executivo e Legislativo. Atua, igualmente, nos casos de modificação dos precedentes por parte do Poder Judiciário. / To classify retroactivity into two categories – true and untrue - is inadequate and insufficient for the purpose to reveal the reality that occurs in relation to retroactivity (ex post facto law). This classification, based on formal and objective criteria, requires the presence of certain legal concepts: acquired right, accomplished juridical act, res judicata or the presence of a taxable event. State acts that, in present or future time, restrain legal facts that occurred in the past are known as true rectroactivity, whereas State acts that, in the present or future time, restrain legal facts when they’re still in development, are known as untrue rectroactivity. Nevertheless, retroactivity of State acts is, essentially, not an issue of consummation of legal facts, but, instead, one of individual rights and its protection. In this sense, the decisive criteria to determine if a State act is retroactive should be, primarily, the analysis of a past, irreversible, legally oriented exercise of an individual right and/or property right. As for the Brazilian legal system, the prohibition of retroactivity (ex post facto law) has, in a practical sense, been limited. Most of the Federal Supreme Court rulings on the subject limit the individual protection only to the cases mentioned on articles 5º, XXXVI and 150, III, “a”, of the Federal Constitution. However, the argumentative reconstruction of the prohibition of retroactivity clause, proves that its fundamentals are not only the two articles. Its indirect foundation is connected materially (by support or justification) to the Rule of Law, to human dignity, to economic freedom, to the right of property, to equality under the Law, to legal certainty, to morality, and to legality. The prohibition of retroactivity accepts the quality of being a legal provision (based on articles 5º, XXXVI and 150, III, “a”, of the Federal Constitution) and of a general Constitutional principle (based materially on the basic rights mentioned above). The prohibition of retroactivity (ex post fact law) means the interdiction for State acts (all three branches) that establish worse consequences, compared to previous legal situation, concerning fundamental rights present even before the enactment of the post fact law. In Tax Law, the different dimensions of the prohibition of retroactivity are applicable due to the openness of the constitutional subsystem (provisions that limit the power to tax). The protection of the taxpayers is not limited, therefore, to the provision of article 150, III, “a” of the Constitution. In respect to this article, the expression taxable event occurred needs to be interpreted as the events through which taxpayers complete the necessary conduct described by the tax provision. The prohibition of retroactivity principle, on the other hand, acts under the influence, mainly, of the following criteria: protection of trust and legal certainty, restriction over individual rights, adequate State intervention (necessary and moderate) with respect to changes in the legal system. The principle is applicable in areas not covered by the constitutional provisions above mentioned. The ex post fact law principle establishes requirements and criteria as to the creation of State acts and for the interpretation of the Law, in a way that these acts preserve the full exercise of past freedom. Its application might imply or not the need for deliberation regarding to the legal context that supports the retroactive act (and its proposed ends). In this context, if an effective collision of principles occurs, the prohibition of retroactivity principle can, due to exceptional reasons concerning other principles (deliberation), give place. The prohibition of retroactivity principle presents itself as a legal limitation for State acts, Executive and Legislative branches. It also acts in cases of reviewing of judicial precedents.

No description available.

A classificação dual retroatividade própria e imprópria é inadequada e insuficiente para retratar o fenômeno que, na realidade, ocorre em relação à retroatividade. Ela está baseada no critério formal e objetivo da completude de requisitos normativos configuradores de certos fatos jurídicos: direito adquirido, ato jurídico perfeito, coisa julgada e fato gerador. Atos estatais que, no presente e no futuro, atingem restritivamente essas categorias consumadas no passado causariam retroatividade própria; atos estatais que, no presente e no futuro, as atingem restritivamente quando elas ainda estão em desenvolvimento causariam retroatividade imprópria. Contudo, a retroatividade dos atos estatais é, essencialmente, um problema não de consumação de fatos jurídicos, mas de disposição de direitos por parte do cidadão. Nesse ponto, o critério decisivo para definir se um ato estatal é retroativo deve ser, primordialmente, a restrição do exercício passado, irreversível e juridicamente orientado da liberdade e da propriedade. No Direito brasileiro, a irretroatividade teve seu sentido prático reduzido. Grande parte das decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre o tema limitam a proteção do indivíduo somente às hipóteses enunciadas pelos arts. 5.º, XXXVI, e 150, III, “a”, da CF/88. Contudo, a reconstrução argumentativa da irretroatividade na CF/88 demonstra que ela é norma jurídica que está fundamentada não apenas nesses dispositivos constitucionais. Seu fundamento indireto a conecta materialmente por fundamentação por suporte e por justificação recíproca com: o Estado de Direito; a liberdade jurídica; a dignidade humana; a liberdade econômica; a propriedade; a igualdade; a segurança jurídica em toda a sua inteireza; a moralidade; e a legalidade. A irretroatividade assume as qualidades normativas de regra jurídica (fundamentada nos arts. 5.º, XXXVI, e 150, III, “a”, da CF/88) e de princípio jurídico geral de Direito Constitucional (fundamentado materialmente nas normas jurídicas antes mencionadas). Irretroatividade significa a proibição de que os atos estatais dos três Poderes de Estado estabeleçam consequências mais gravosas, relativamente à disciplina anterior, aos atos de disposição de direitos fundamentais realizados antes da sua entrada em vigor. No Direito Tributário, as dimensões normativas da irretroatividade são aplicáveis em razão da abertura do subsistema das limitações ao poder de tributar. A proteção do contribuinte não está restrita, portanto, à regra reconduzida ao art. 150, III, “a”, da CF/88. Quanto a essa regra, a expressão fato gerador ocorrido deve ser entendida como eventos por meio dos quais os contribuintes completaram o comportamento necessário à realização do fato gerador previsto pela norma tributária de incidência. O princípio da irretroatividade material, por sua vez, atua sob a influência dos seguintes critérios principais: proteção da confiança e segurança jurídica em seu sentido objetivo; restrição ao exercício de direitos fundamentais; e atuação estatal mediante atos adequados, necessários e moderados com relação às mudanças normativas por eles provocadas. O referido princípio é aplicado no âmbito normativo não coberto pelas regras da irretroatividade acima referidas. A irretroatividade-princípio estabelece exigências e critérios para criação de atos estatais e para interpretação e aplicação do Direito, de tal modo que esses atos sejam preservadores do exercício passado da liberdade. Sua aplicação pode implicar ou não necessidade de ponderação horizontal em face das normas que suportam as finalidades estatais visadas pelo ato retroativo. Nesse ponto, se houver efetiva colisão entre princípios contrapostos, o princípio da irretroatividade pode, por razões excepcionais de maior peso relacionadas aos outros princípios jurídicos, ser afastado. A irretroatividade apresenta eficácia jurídica limitadora das manifestações estatais emitidas pelos Poderes Executivo e Legislativo. Atua, igualmente, nos casos de modificação dos precedentes por parte do Poder Judiciário. / To classify retroactivity into two categories – true and untrue - is inadequate and insufficient for the purpose to reveal the reality that occurs in relation to retroactivity (ex post facto law). This classification, based on formal and objective criteria, requires the presence of certain legal concepts: acquired right, accomplished juridical act, res judicata or the presence of a taxable event. State acts that, in present or future time, restrain legal facts that occurred in the past are known as true rectroactivity, whereas State acts that, in the present or future time, restrain legal facts when they’re still in development, are known as untrue rectroactivity. Nevertheless, retroactivity of State acts is, essentially, not an issue of consummation of legal facts, but, instead, one of individual rights and its protection. In this sense, the decisive criteria to determine if a State act is retroactive should be, primarily, the analysis of a past, irreversible, legally oriented exercise of an individual right and/or property right. As for the Brazilian legal system, the prohibition of retroactivity (ex post facto law) has, in a practical sense, been limited. Most of the Federal Supreme Court rulings on the subject limit the individual protection only to the cases mentioned on articles 5º, XXXVI and 150, III, “a”, of the Federal Constitution. However, the argumentative reconstruction of the prohibition of retroactivity clause, proves that its fundamentals are not only the two articles. Its indirect foundation is connected materially (by support or justification) to the Rule of Law, to human dignity, to economic freedom, to the right of property, to equality under the Law, to legal certainty, to morality, and to legality. The prohibition of retroactivity accepts the quality of being a legal provision (based on articles 5º, XXXVI and 150, III, “a”, of the Federal Constitution) and of a general Constitutional principle (based materially on the basic rights mentioned above). The prohibition of retroactivity (ex post fact law) means the interdiction for State acts (all three branches) that establish worse consequences, compared to previous legal situation, concerning fundamental rights present even before the enactment of the post fact law. In Tax Law, the different dimensions of the prohibition of retroactivity are applicable due to the openness of the constitutional subsystem (provisions that limit the power to tax). The protection of the taxpayers is not limited, therefore, to the provision of article 150, III, “a” of the Constitution. In respect to this article, the expression taxable event occurred needs to be interpreted as the events through which taxpayers complete the necessary conduct described by the tax provision. The prohibition of retroactivity principle, on the other hand, acts under the influence, mainly, of the following criteria: protection of trust and legal certainty, restriction over individual rights, adequate State intervention (necessary and moderate) with respect to changes in the legal system. The principle is applicable in areas not covered by the constitutional provisions above mentioned. The ex post fact law principle establishes requirements and criteria as to the creation of State acts and for the interpretation of the Law, in a way that these acts preserve the full exercise of past freedom. Its application might imply or not the need for deliberation regarding to the legal context that supports the retroactive act (and its proposed ends). In this context, if an effective collision of principles occurs, the prohibition of retroactivity principle can, due to exceptional reasons concerning other principles (deliberation), give place. The prohibition of retroactivity principle presents itself as a legal limitation for State acts, Executive and Legislative branches. It also acts in cases of reviewing of judicial precedents.

Este trabalho versa sobre a aplicação do princípio da confiança legítima no Direito Tributário brasileiro, com foco no art. 100, inciso III, do Código Tributário Nacional (CTN), que trata das práticas reiteradamente observadas pelas autoridades administrativas. Parte-se da origem do princípio, aproximando a investigação por meio do princípio da segurança jurídica, da certeza do direito e da irretroatividade; em seguida, diferencia-se a proteção da confiança da boa-fé objetiva e prossegue-se pelo princípio da legalidade e a evolução jurisprudencial a respeito da conservação positiva ou negativa dos atos eivados de vícios quando deles se originaram direitos. Foca-se, então, nos requisitos para a configuração da confiança digna de proteção e os mecanismos de proteção positiva ou negativa dessa confiança. Desse ponto em diante, o estudo passa a desenhar a proteção da confiança legítima nos atos do Poder Executivo, por meio da análise do art. 100 do CTN, como fonte secundária de direito tributário. Conceituam-se as normas complementares, a origem e sua função, para então proceder-se ao exame específico das práticas reiteradamente observadas pelas autoridades administrativas e sua relação com o princípio da confiança legítima. Em seguida, analisa-se o parágrafo único do art. 100 do CTN para avaliar se são corretas a não atualização monetária da base de cálculo do tributo e a admissão de retroatividade parcial dos efeitos do reconhecimento da ilegalidade da prática administrativa em que confiou o contribuinte. Examina-se, de início, se a inércia da Administração Pública acerca de lançamento cuja homologação se dê de maneira tácita seria um silêncio positivo a configurar prática reiterada suficiente para dar respaldo à proteção do parágrafo único do art. 100 do CTN. O estudo avalia se, no caso dos tributos indiretos, pela impossibilidade de o contribuinte transferir ao consumidor a exação, justificaria uma proteção maior do que aquela conferida pelo próprio parágrafo único do art. 100 do CTN. Por derradeiro, a norma do art. 146 é confrontada com a do art. 100, inciso III, ambos do CTN, para fins de estabelecer os campos de aplicação de uma e de outra e em que medida elas se relacionam com a proteção da confiança legítima. / This work deals with the application of the principle of legitimate expectations in Brazilian tax law, focusing on Article 100, section III of the Brazilian Tax Code, which deals with the practices observed repeatedly by administrative authorities. The proposed scientific part of the origin of the principle, approaching research through the principle of legal security, legal certainty and non-retroactivity. Then differentiates the protection of reliable objective good faith and goes by the principle of legality and judicial developments regarding conservation (positive or negative) of the acts riddled with addictions when their rights originated. Focuses, then, on the requirements for setting up trust worthy of protection and the protection mechanisms positive or negative that trust. Thereafter the study is to draw back the protection of legitimate expectations in the acts of the Executive, through the analysis of Article 100 of the Internal Revenue Code, as secondary sources of tax law. Conceptualize themselves supplementary rules, the origin and function, down to the specific scope of practice repeatedly observed by the administrative authorities and their relation to the principle of legitimate expectations. Then we analyze the sole paragraph of article 100 of the Internal Revenue Code to assess whether it is correct not to monetary base tax calculation and admission of retroactivity of the effects of partial recognition of the illegality of administrative practice that relied on the taxpayer. Turning to specific issues initially analyzed is the inertia of public administration, which tacitly approves taxes charged for approval, would be a positive silence configuring repeated practice enough to give birth to protect the sole paragraph of article 100 of the Tax Code national. The study evaluates whether, in the case of indirect taxes, the inability of the taxpayer to transfer the consumer the exaction would justify greater protection than that afforded by the sole paragraph of article 100 of the Internal Revenue Code. Finally, the norm of Article 146 is confronted with Article 100, item III, both of the National Tax Code, for purposes of establishing fields of application of one and the other and the extent to which both relate to the protection of legitimate expectations.

Context Spyware is “computer software that obtains information from a user's computer without the user's knowledge or consent” [25]. Spyware is often embedded in another application and is usually stated in End User License Agreement (EULA) [20]. However it is quite common to accept the EULA without even reading it. Therefore beside the traditional spyware analysis techniques, automated EULA analysis can be helpful for common users in order to identify the spyware [18]. Objectives The techniques of automated EULA analysis do exist however the process of taking a binary application, analyze it, and prepare it in order to extract the EULA has not been studied in existing research. There is a need for such a tool that can extract and analyze the EULA text from an installer binary without executing it. Objectives of this research are to investigate the techniques to unpack the binary file, extract the EULA, analyze it and present the analysis results to the end user. Methods In order to establish basic understanding of the related concepts preliminary study is done. In this study a number of article sources are used, including ACM Digital Library, Compendex, Inspec, IEEE Xplore, and Springer Link. Material has been selected after reading titles and summaries. Prototype of an open source tool is designed and developed. This tool extracts the EULA from executable binary installers, analyzes the extracted text and gives suggestions about legitimate level of the software. Results To evaluate our application we downloaded 150 executables from different web sites, which were already classified as bad or good by [23]. We used our tool to extract EULA text from executables. We were able to extract EULA from 48 percent of selected binary files. Analysis of extracted EULAs was also done to classify the software as good or bad. This analysis assists the user to make a decision to accept or reject the installation of software without reading even a single word of EULA. During the extraction and analysis process there was no significant impact on performance of the host system. Conclusion We conclude that EULA can be extracted from a binary file without executing it. However because of limited time it was not possible to extract EULA from all installer binaries. The rate of EULA extraction can be improved in future research.

The concept of legitimate expectations plays a significant role in international investment law. Although it is only in the past roughly fifteen years that the concept has come to the spotlight, its importance and utilization is on the rise. Generally speaking, the concept of legitimate expectations, under certain conditions, allows a foreign investor to claim compensation in situations where the conduct of a host State creates a legitimate and reasonable expectation that the investor may rely on such conduct, and consequently the host State fails to fulfill those expectations, causing damages to the investor. However, the concept of protection of legitimate expectations has stirred up debates as to the legitimacy of its use in investment law and raised concerns due to its imprecise boundaries and excessively extensive interpretation. Accordingly, it is the goal of this thesis to either confirm or refute two main propositions. The first proposition suggests that the principle of protection of legitimate expectations is an established principle of investment law with traceable origins in both domestic law and general international law. The examination of the first proposition addresses theoretical roots of the concept of legitimate expectations justifying its application in investment law together...