La loyauté procédurale n’est pas consacrée dans le droit du procès administratif. Elle fait pourtant l’objet d’un débat au sein de la doctrine publiciste. Alors que la jurisprudence judiciaire et la doctrine privatiste font de la loyauté des débats essentiellement un enjeu de moralisation du procès entre les parties, le discours de la doctrine publiciste sur la loyauté vise à révéler et justifier les garanties apportées aux parties dans le procès administratif. Une démarche inductive, consistant à systématiser le discours doctrinal, permet de formuler un concept de loyauté procédurale propre au procès administratif. Celui-ci apporte une justification à certains traits de procédure, consacrés par les textes ou la jurisprudence, qui n’ont pas de fondement exprès et dont le point commun est de reconnaître des garanties aux parties. Ce concept offre une grille d’analyse du droit du procès. La circonstance que le principe de loyauté procédurale est rejeté en droit n’exclut pas, en outre, l’intérêt d’un usage conceptuel de la loyauté. Le concept de loyauté permet d’apprécier l’opportunité de consacrer certains mécanismes contentieux et d’identifier les difficultés posées par le procès administratif selon les critères de l’intégrité, de l’accessibilité et de l’efficacité à l’égard des parties. Envisagée comme un concept d’explication, la loyauté procédurale devient un concept d’analyse de la procédure suivie devant le juge administratif et suggère certaines évolutions des règles applicables au procès administratif. / The concept of procedural loyalty is not enshrined in the legal frameworks that govern administrative legal proceedings. Nonetheless, it has been subject to significant debate throughout the administrative legal doctrine. In contrast to judicial case law and civil doctrine where the concept of loyalty of debates is essentially focused on the moralization between the parties involved, the administrative doctrine on loyalty aims to disclose and justify the guaranties and safeguards given to the parties involved. An inductive approach, consistent in systematizing the doctrinal discourse, has lead to a concept of procedural loyalty that is unique to administrative legal proceedings. It provides justification over the key features of legal proceedings, features that are enshrined in either legal texts or case law but do not have explicit legal foundations and for which the common feature is to recognize safeguards afforded to the parties involved. This concept brings about a new set of legal terminology. The fact that the principal of procedural loyalty is not explicitly covered in legal frameworks, does not mean however that the conceptual usage of loyalty should be discarded. This concept allows us to acknowledge the opportunity in devoting litigation mechanisms to administrative legal proceedings, in order to identify the difficulties brought about in respect of the integrity, accessibility and efficiency with regards to all parties involved. Initially envisaged as an explanatory concept, procedural loyalty has been transformed into a conceptual analysis of the proceedings presided over by administrative judges.

O direito intertemporal é um dos ramos mais complexos da ciência jurídica. Não bastasse a amplitude do tema e sua ligação com todos os ramos da ciência jurídica, as soluções apresentadas pela doutrina para seus problemas são bastante variadas e partem de enfoques bem diferenciados na observação dos seus fenômenos. A despeito de ser uma matéria extremamente importante, porque vinculada com o progresso da ciência jurídica e com a evolução do ordenamento mediante a alteração das leis, ela não recebeu a atenção adequada da doutrina processual, o que reflete na absoluta ausência de parâmetros seguros para o direito intertemporal processual. Este estudo é uma tentativa de sistematização desse ramo do direito. Para alcançar os objetivos propostos partiu-se da análise das principais doutrinas do direito intertemporal, com atenção especial às de GABBA e ROUBIER por serem elas as que exercem maior influência no nosso sistema. A preocupação principal nesse momento foi a de fixar conceitos que são imprescindíveis para uma boa compreensão do modo como o direito intertemporal é tratado em nosso ordenamento. Posteriormente foi estudado o sistema de direito intertemporal brasileiro, numa análise global, sem uma preocupação especial, ainda, com o direito processual. A abordagem partiu de uma evolução histórica do tratamento da disciplina e culminou com o esboço do modo como nosso sistema confere proteção aos direitos adquiridos e às situações jurídicas consolidadas contra alterações legislativas. Fixadas essas idéias, passou-se à análise do direito processual civil intertemporal. Em um primeiro momento foram demonstrados os motivos que justificam uma abordagem da disciplina a partir de um enfoque eminentemente processual, para, posteriormente, traçar um resumo da forma como essa disciplina é tratada pela legislação, doutrina e jurisprudência. Dessa análise ressaltaram as principais lacunas da disciplina, que são: a ausência de delimitação dos direitos processuais adquiridos; a falta de sistematização da disciplina dos poderes do juiz em matéria de direito intertemporal e a inexistência de parâmetros seguros para identificação das situações jurídicas processuais. Identificadas essas lacunas, foram desenvolvidos esforços para que este estudo fornecesse subsídios para preenchê-las. Para tanto, foram estudados isoladamente cada um desses temas e, dentro das limitações do trabalho, buscou-se enfocá-los de maneira diferenciada e mais aproximada, a fim de alcançar os objetivos propostos. No tópico final foram esclarecidas as principais conclusões obtidas durante o estudo com o desenho do modo como, a partir delas, entendeu se possível sistematizar o direito processual civil intertemporal brasileiro. / Intertemporal Law is one of the most intricate branches in the field of legal theory. Adding to its width and to its connection with all juridical fields, the solutions presented by this doctrine are quite ample and stem from diverse focuses when observing its phenomena. Notwithstanding being an extremely important subject, for it binds upon the progress of the legal science and upon the evolution of Law amendment ordinance, it has not been closely observed by the procedural doctrine, what explains the lack of safe parameters for the procedural intertemporal Law. This paper seeks to systemize this branch of Law. To attain the objectives herein, analysis of the main doctrines of intertemporal law were carried out, and special attention was placed on those of GABBA and ROUBIER for they are the ones that mostly influence our system. The initial worry was to fix concepts which are imperative for understanding how intertemporal law is dealt with in our system. Afterwards, the intertemporal Brazilian system was examined, on its whole, still not aiming at its procedural aspects. Its address arouse from a historical approach of this discipline and ended up with a draft of how our system confers protection to acquired rights and to consolidated legal cases against legislative alterations. Thereafter, analysis of intertemporal civil procedure took place. Prima facie, motives which justify its eminent procedural approach was demonstrated and, then, a summary of how it is treated by our legislation, doctrine and jurisprudence. From this analysis its main gaps came to surface, namely: absence of acquired procedural rights delimitation; absence of systematization of judges authorities inherent in intertemporal law and absence of safe parameters for identification of procedural situations. These gaps identified, efforts were endeavored towards this study with a view to providing solutions to them. So, each one was separately studied and, within the scope of this paper, differentiated and closer focuses were sought, aiming at complying with the proposed objectives. Last, this studys main conclusions are made clearer, with a framework, as of these conclusions, of how it was possible to systemize the Brazilian intertemporal civil law.

This article examines the close relationship between criminal procedure and constitutional law within a democratic State framework as well as the guarantees provided from a constitutional point of view in accordance with the current context of human rights globalization. Then, the author approaches us to criminal procedure main principles and guarantees, procedural models historically formed. Finally, it presents an interesting Criminal Procedural Code analysis describing guarantees, principles and procedural models recognized in our country. / Este artículo reflexiona sobre la estrecha relación entre el proceso penal y el derecho constitucional en el marco de un Estado democrático, así como sobre las garantías que debe brindar desde la óptica constitucional y en el actual contexto de globalización de los derechos humanos. A continuación nos aproxima a los principales principios y garantías del proceso penal, y a los modelos procesales históricamente configurados. Finalmente, el artículo nos presenta un interesante análisis de Código Procesal Penal, describiendo las garantías, principios y modelo procesal reconocido de nuestro país.

O direito intertemporal é um dos ramos mais complexos da ciência jurídica. Não bastasse a amplitude do tema e sua ligação com todos os ramos da ciência jurídica, as soluções apresentadas pela doutrina para seus problemas são bastante variadas e partem de enfoques bem diferenciados na observação dos seus fenômenos. A despeito de ser uma matéria extremamente importante, porque vinculada com o progresso da ciência jurídica e com a evolução do ordenamento mediante a alteração das leis, ela não recebeu a atenção adequada da doutrina processual, o que reflete na absoluta ausência de parâmetros seguros para o direito intertemporal processual. Este estudo é uma tentativa de sistematização desse ramo do direito. Para alcançar os objetivos propostos partiu-se da análise das principais doutrinas do direito intertemporal, com atenção especial às de GABBA e ROUBIER por serem elas as que exercem maior influência no nosso sistema. A preocupação principal nesse momento foi a de fixar conceitos que são imprescindíveis para uma boa compreensão do modo como o direito intertemporal é tratado em nosso ordenamento. Posteriormente foi estudado o sistema de direito intertemporal brasileiro, numa análise global, sem uma preocupação especial, ainda, com o direito processual. A abordagem partiu de uma evolução histórica do tratamento da disciplina e culminou com o esboço do modo como nosso sistema confere proteção aos direitos adquiridos e às situações jurídicas consolidadas contra alterações legislativas. Fixadas essas idéias, passou-se à análise do direito processual civil intertemporal. Em um primeiro momento foram demonstrados os motivos que justificam uma abordagem da disciplina a partir de um enfoque eminentemente processual, para, posteriormente, traçar um resumo da forma como essa disciplina é tratada pela legislação, doutrina e jurisprudência. Dessa análise ressaltaram as principais lacunas da disciplina, que são: a ausência de delimitação dos direitos processuais adquiridos; a falta de sistematização da disciplina dos poderes do juiz em matéria de direito intertemporal e a inexistência de parâmetros seguros para identificação das situações jurídicas processuais. Identificadas essas lacunas, foram desenvolvidos esforços para que este estudo fornecesse subsídios para preenchê-las. Para tanto, foram estudados isoladamente cada um desses temas e, dentro das limitações do trabalho, buscou-se enfocá-los de maneira diferenciada e mais aproximada, a fim de alcançar os objetivos propostos. No tópico final foram esclarecidas as principais conclusões obtidas durante o estudo com o desenho do modo como, a partir delas, entendeu se possível sistematizar o direito processual civil intertemporal brasileiro. / Intertemporal Law is one of the most intricate branches in the field of legal theory. Adding to its width and to its connection with all juridical fields, the solutions presented by this doctrine are quite ample and stem from diverse focuses when observing its phenomena. Notwithstanding being an extremely important subject, for it binds upon the progress of the legal science and upon the evolution of Law amendment ordinance, it has not been closely observed by the procedural doctrine, what explains the lack of safe parameters for the procedural intertemporal Law. This paper seeks to systemize this branch of Law. To attain the objectives herein, analysis of the main doctrines of intertemporal law were carried out, and special attention was placed on those of GABBA and ROUBIER for they are the ones that mostly influence our system. The initial worry was to fix concepts which are imperative for understanding how intertemporal law is dealt with in our system. Afterwards, the intertemporal Brazilian system was examined, on its whole, still not aiming at its procedural aspects. Its address arouse from a historical approach of this discipline and ended up with a draft of how our system confers protection to acquired rights and to consolidated legal cases against legislative alterations. Thereafter, analysis of intertemporal civil procedure took place. Prima facie, motives which justify its eminent procedural approach was demonstrated and, then, a summary of how it is treated by our legislation, doctrine and jurisprudence. From this analysis its main gaps came to surface, namely: absence of acquired procedural rights delimitation; absence of systematization of judges authorities inherent in intertemporal law and absence of safe parameters for identification of procedural situations. These gaps identified, efforts were endeavored towards this study with a view to providing solutions to them. So, each one was separately studied and, within the scope of this paper, differentiated and closer focuses were sought, aiming at complying with the proposed objectives. Last, this studys main conclusions are made clearer, with a framework, as of these conclusions, of how it was possible to systemize the Brazilian intertemporal civil law.

[pt] A persecução penal foi analisada sob a ótica da incidência do princípio da ampla defesa na fase de inquérito policial e no curso do processo. A partir da observação das práticas dos órgãos estatais que atuam na persecução penal, foi possível inferir que apesar da Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988 estabelecer princípios garantistas, norteadores do processo penal, a atuação dos órgãos estatais ainda está pautada por um caráter repressivo/punitivo que inspirou a elaboração do Código de Processo Penal de 1941. Foram selecionados julgados do Supremo Tribunal Federal, do Superior Tribunal de Justiça e do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de Minas Gerais demonstrativos de uma interpretação que prima pela relativização das garantias processuais. Ainda que se realizem reformas no diploma processual penal, visando melhor adequá-lo à Constituição Federal, não há que se falar em respeito ao devido processo penal enquanto as decisões judiciais persistirem em flexibilizar os princípios constitucionais e as normas infraconstitucionais garantidoras dos direitos daqueles que estão sujeitos ao processo. O comprometimento do devido processo penal é evidenciado não somente por tais práticas judiciais, mas também pela ausência de efetiva ampla defesa, pois grande parte daqueles que estão submetidos ao processo não tem condições de contratar advogados e não há por parte do Estado o cumprimento do dever de prestar a assistência jurídica integral e gratuita a ser realizada pela Defensoria Pública. A ausência de efetiva ampla defesa macula o exercício da cidadania e o processo penal é visto como instrumento para legitimar uma exclusão que o antecede, assumindo o Estado brasileiro a postura do eficientismo penal em detrimento do respeito às garantias constitucionais. Nessa perspectiva, reconhece-se a necessidade de melhor estruturação da Defensoria Pública, para a defesa dos direitos dos hipossuficientes, pois em razão da capacidade técnico-jurídica de seus profissionais, pode se contrapor às práticas autoritárias, defendendo o status libertatis dos investigados e acusados. / [en] Criminal prosecution was assessed from the perspective of the principle of full defense during police investigation and along corresponding procedures. From the observation of state agency practices regarding criminal prosecution, it was possible to infer that, despite the fact that the 1988 Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil sets forth guarantee principles to guide criminal procedures, the performance of state offices is still ruled by a repressive/punitive characteristic that inspired the creation of 1941 Code of Criminal Proceedings. Decisions issued by the Federal Supreme Court, the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Justice of the State of Minas Gerais were selected once they demonstrated an interpretation that excels in the relativizing procedural guarantees. Even if reforms are carried out to the criminal procedural diploma aiming at better adjusting it to the Federal Constitution, it is not possible to talk about respect for the due criminal procedure while legal decisions insist in softening constitutional principles and infra-constitutional standards that guarantee the rights of those who are subjected to the proceedings. The sacrifice of the due criminal procedure is evidenced not only by such legal practices, but also by the lack of effective full defense once most of those who are subjected to the procedure cannot engage lawyers and the Government fails to comply with the obligation to provide full and free legal assistance through the Public Defender s Office. The absence of effective full defense tarnishes the exercise of citizenship and the criminal procedure is seen as an instrument to legitimate an exclusion that precedes it. The Brazilian State assumes the posture of criminal efficiency to the detriment of respect for constitutional guarantees. From that stand point, is recognized the need to improve the structure of the Public Defender s Office to defend the rights of the disadvantaged ones, due to the technical and legal capacity of its professionals, they can fight authoritarian practices, defending the status libertatis of investigated and accused ones.

Persons who seek international protection in the European Union are entitled to number of rights contained in the EU law, international law and national law. Some applicants for international protection are entitled to additional rights and guarantees due to their weakened position. This thesis analyses the legal position of vulnerable applicants for international protection (or more precisely applicants with special needs). The position of minor applicants is dealt with in more detail. The thesis further deals with the legislation of the Common European Asylum System, attention is also paid to the European Court of Human Right's case- law, to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and to other relevant documents. All applicants for international protection can be seen as vulnerable. In the view of the European Court of Human Rights applicant for international protection is "as such, a member of a particularly underprivileged and vulnerable population group in need of special protection". The EU law does not explicitly describe applicants as vulnerable, but it entitles them to a certain standard of rights by which it reflects their difficult position. Furthermore, the Reception Conditions Directive and Asylum Procedures Directive define applicants with special needs (more precisely applicants...

Principe trouvant une expression solennelle à l’article 6 C.E.D.H., le droit au procès équitable irradie aujourd’hui l’ensemble de notre droit interne. Dans un contexte de subjectivisation du droit, le droit administratif n’échappe pas à cette « irrésistible extension du contentieux du procès équitable » (Mme KOERING-JOULIN). Cette assertion trouve une manifestation éclatante quant aux pouvoirs de sanctions et de règlement des différends reconnus aux autorités administratives. La définition européenne du champ d’application du droit au procès équitable, suivie par la Cour de cassation et adaptée par le Conseil d’État, permet, en effet, à l'article 6 précité de faire florès en ce domaine. Ainsi, en l’état actuel de la jurisprudence administrative, le moyen tiré de la violation de cette stipulation peut utilement être invoqué à l’encontre des autorités administratives indépendantes, tant dans le cadre de leur activité répressive que contentieuse. Depuis maintenant huit ans, le respect de cette garantie s’impose à la procédure d’établissement des sanctions fiscales. A suivre cette ligne jurisprudentielle, l’extension du droit au procès équitable à l’ensemble des autorités administratives répressives voire contentieuses pourrait être la voie de l’avenir. Une telle évolution n’est toutefois pas sans soulever certaines questions. La processualisation croissante de la répression administrative, sous l’effet du droit au procès équitable, n’est-elle pas une contradiction en soi ? Ne va-t-elle pas à rebours de l’objectif initialement poursuivi par l’externalisation de la sanction ? Plus fondamentalement, l’assujettissement de l’administration aux garanties spécifiques à la procédure juridictionnelle ne participe-t-il pas au rétablissement d’une certaine confusion entre l’administration et la juridiction ? N'y a-t-il pas là renaissance, sous une forme évidemment nouvelle, de la figure que l'on croyait révolue de l'administrateur-juge ? / The right to a fair trial is enshrined in the article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and irradiates now all French law. In the context of the subjectivization of the law, administrative law is also subject to this "unstoppable rise of disputes in the name of the right to a fair trial" (Mrs. KOERING-JOULIN). This assertion is particularly true regarding the powers of sanction and the settlement of disputes granted to the administrative authorities. The European definition of the right to a fair trial applied by the Court of Cassation and adapted by the Council of State allows a wide application of this right. So, given the current state of the administrative case law, the right to a fair trial can be usefully claimed against independent administrative authorities as regard either their law enforcement activities or litigation practice. And the tax administration has also been compelled to respect this fundamental right for eight years now. In line with this settled jurisprudence, the extension of the right to a fair trial to all the administrative authorities may be the way of the future. But such an evolution raises a few questions. Isn't the increasing jurisdictionalization of the administration activities as a result of the right to a fair trial an inconsistency in itself? Doesn't it go against the primary goal of the outsourcing of the administrative penalties? More fundamentally, doesn't subjecting the administrative authorities to the specific principles of court procedures participate in reinstating some confusion between administration and jurisdiction? Isn’t it the rebirth, under a new form, of the administrator-judge we thought was long gone?

La recevabilité de la preuve est sans doute l’une des questions les plusimportantes de l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice de l’Union européenne,mais aussi une des plus complexes. Les difficultés relatives à l’utilisation d’unepreuve recueillie dans un État membre, devant les juridictions répressives d’un autreÉtat membre, semblent cependant avoir été sous-estimées par le législateureuropéen. En effet, l’amélioration de l’efficacité de la répression transnationale a étéune des priorités de la politique criminelle de l’Union ces quinze dernières années. Àce titre, le renforcement des mécanismes de coopération judiciaire, y compris ceuxvisant à l’obtention de la preuve transnationale, a été privilégié. Grâce au principe dereconnaissance mutuelle des décisions judiciaires en matière pénale, fondé sur laconfiance réciproque que les États membres se portent, les divergences etéventuelles incompatibilités entre les systèmes nationaux ont été tenues en échec,permettant ainsi la libre circulation des preuves dans l’espace pénal européen.Cependant, cette justification théorique n’est pas suffisante pour assurer larecevabilité mutuelle des preuves, la bonne administration de la preuve pénaledemeurant une question nationale, souverainement appréciée par le juge national.De plus, tant l’étude comparative des régimes probatoires nationaux que laprésentation des instruments de coopération judiciaire montrent des déficiencesprofondes, appelant ainsi à une protection accrue et harmonisée des droitsfondamentaux dans les procédures répressives au niveau européen, dans le butd’assurer la recevabilité mutuelle des preuves pénales dans l’espace pénaleuropéen. / Admissibility of evidence is one of the most crucial and complicatedissues in the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice. However, thedifficulties regarding the use of evidence gathered in one Member State inproceedings in another Member State through the mechanisms of judicialcooperation seems to have been underestimated by the European Union legislator,and this despite the success of criminal proceedings with a cross-border characterbeing considered a priority for the last fifteen years. Indeed, the EU’s criminal policyhas been striving for the strengthening of the efficiency of judicial cooperationbetween judicial authorities. This requires the improvement of the instrumentsdedicated to obtaining criminal evidence. Thanks to the principle of mutualrecognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters, based on mutual trust betweenMember States, the differences between and potential incompatibilities of nationalsystems should not be an obstacle to the free circulation of evidence in the EUcriminal justice area.However, this theoretical justification is not sufficient to ensure mutual admissibility ofevidence, as the good administration of evidence remains a national issue, with awide margin of appreciation accorded to the national judge. Furthermore, both thestudy of national procedural norms and the study of the European Union legalframework show deficiencies, requiring a coherent concept for the protection offundamental rights in criminal proceedings at the EU-level. A better and harmonisedprotection of procedural guarantees is the path to ensure the mutual admissibility ofevidence, overcoming national differences.