No description available.

<p>När arbetstagare utstationeras till ett land annat än det ordinarie, är det inte alltid självklart vilket lands lag eller rättsystem som ska reglera anställningsavtalet. Då görs ett lagval, som innebär att utländsk lag kan tillämpas på vissa situationer i de nationella domstolarna. För utstationering inom EU regleras lagvalet av Utstationeringsdirektivet. Detta tillämpas dock under en begränsad tid, och sedan övergår avtalet till att regleras av Romkonventionen. Speciella lagvalsregler för individuella anställningsavtal återfinns i Romkonventionens art. 6. Förändringarna för individuella anställningsavtal i och med Rom I-förordningen ligger främst i att rättsakten blir direkt tillämplig, att EG-domstolen ges tolkningsmöjlighet samt att ordalydelsen moderniseras i art. 8. Att domstolen ges en exklusiv makt att lösa tolkningssvårigheter av lagvalsregler för individuella anställningsavtal innebär att det finns en avsikt att det som stadgas i Rom I-förordningen i framtiden ska utvecklas genom EG-domstolens praxis. Denna praxis kan förmodas att i framtiden skapa ett mer överskådligt rättsläge vid tillämpningen av förordningens art. 8.</p>

The Brussels I-Regulation, often referred to as the Jurisdiction Regulation, is said to be the matrix of the European judicial cooperation system within the area of international private law. The Regulation states how jurisdiction is to be determined in an international dispute. The aim of the Regulation is to ensure that parties in a dispute within the EU have access to justice.The Regulation is considered to be working well in general, and have been since it came in-to force in 2007. Although it is held to be well functioning it does not exclude that some improvements might be needed. The commission ordered a review of the Regulation and the result was that some deficiencies were identified. Some of the deficiencies that were found were concerned with the relation to defendants from third countries. It was held that the regulation was unsatisfactory in this aspect. These deficiencies resulted in the working group presenting a proposal of a review of the regulation.The aim of this thesis is to investigate some of the consequences that might come with the proposed solutions. The investigation is limited to only discussing some sections of the Regulation. The parts that will be discussed are the ones that are concerned with the rela-tion to defendants from third countries. The investigation shows that although the propos-al means positive developments within the area it is far from clear and precise. The result of these unclear rules might be that they are hard to interpret and apply.The author comes to the conclusion that although the proposal means positive and sought after development within the area of private international law it needs to be reworked due to the ambiguities with the proposed solutions. If the proposal is not reworked the EUD will probably have to interpret the meaning of the proposed rules which might lead to a time consuming and costly process.

No description available.

Submitted by Edileide Reis (leyde-landy@hotmail.com) on 2013-04-16T18:23:07Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Lucas Oliveira.pdf: 365301 bytes, checksum: d1e2ec1453276f564fcbb9f188c6744f (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Rodrigo Meirelles(rodrigomei@ufba.br) on 2013-05-09T17:31:58Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Lucas Oliveira.pdf: 365301 bytes, checksum: d1e2ec1453276f564fcbb9f188c6744f (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2013-05-09T17:31:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Lucas Oliveira.pdf: 365301 bytes, checksum: d1e2ec1453276f564fcbb9f188c6744f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 / Esta dissertação tem como objetivo principal examinar os reflexos, no Direito Processual do Trabalho, das mudanças pelas quais tem passado o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, no que concerne ao princípio do duplo grau de jurisdição. Para tanto, será feito uma explanação sobre os componentes epistemológicos do direito processual, com influxos metodológicos, ideológicos e constitucionais. Em seguida, estuda-se sobre a teoria do Processo do Trabalho, observando-se sua autonomia e os princípios processuais. Ato contínuo, investiga-se o princípio do duplo grau de jurisdição de maneira geral, trabalhando-se suas características em sentido amplo. Na seqüência, serão feitas considerações com enfoque dogmático sobre o objetivo de conhecimento pelo tribunal, para tanto serão necessários compreender os conceitos de causa de pedir, pedidos questões, efeito devolutivo e juízo de admissibilidade aplicados a demanda e aos recursos. O ponto nuclear, todavia, está ao final, consubstanciando-se no estudo do princípio do duplo grau de jurisdição no Processo do Trabalho com respectivas conseqüências como o julgamento imediato do mérito pelo tribunal e os reflexos deste nos ritos sumário e sumaríssimo. / Salvador

Esta dissertação estuda a possibilidade de utilização do instituto da arbitragem e sua pertinência na solução de conflitos de consumo. Sabe-se que o processo judicial é o instrumento ordinário existente no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro para solucionar os conflitos existentes na sociedade. Contudo, em razão das dificuldades decorrentes do abarrotamento do Poder Judiciário, como a ineficiência e a morosidade na solução jurisdicional prestada por esse Poder, o Estado vem fomentando a utilização de mecanismos extrajudiciais, onde se inclui a arbitragem. Esse instituto obteve tratamento especial dado pelo legislador brasileiro em 1996, quando foi publicada a Lei de Arbitragem, conhecida como Lei Marco Maciel. Vários doutrinadores e o próprio Estado apresentam a arbitragem como meio extrajudicial célere e hábil para a solução de contendas, inclusive as que envolvem consumidores e fornecedores. Esse estudo inscreve-se, metodologicamente, nas investigações tradicionais do Direito, ou seja, analisa-se as normas contidas na Lei de Arbitragem (Lei n 9.307/1996) e no Código de Defesa do Consumidor (Lei n 8.078/1990) e estuda-se o entendimento de doutrinadores e dados jurisprudenciais. A contribuição dessa pesquisa para o Direito consiste em verificar se a solução dos conflitos onde exista, de um lado, o fornecedor, e, do outro, o consumidor, parte vulnerável da relação jurídica de consumo, cujo objeto refere-se a produtos e serviços, através da arbitragem, atende aos requisitos legais e constitucionais na obtenção de um processo justo, ou seja, pretende-se analisar se há possibilidade legal da utilização da arbitragem na solução de conflitos de consumo e se os interesses e direitos dos consumidores estão sendo realmente protegidos quando as controvérsias consumeiristas são submetidas a essa forma de jurisdição privada / This paper has the objective to study the arbitration and to verify if this extrajudicial way can be used to solve conflicts of consume. The judicial process is main way that is used by Brazilian to get a solution to their problems. However, because of the difficulties that are generated by the Judiciary Power overfill, such as the inefficiency and the slowness in the jurisdictional solution by this Power, the State has been instigating the population to utilize extrajudicial mechanisms, where we can include the arbitration. The Brazilian legislator gave it a special treatment in the year of 1996, when the Law of Arbitration, known as Marco Maciel Law, was published. Many doctrinaires and the State itself present the arbitration as a fast and able alternative way to resolve disputes, including also those that involve consumers and producers. That study is methodologically inscribed in traditional investigations of the Law, that is to say, it analyses rules contained in the Arbitration Law (n. 9.307/1996) and in the Consumer Defense Code (Law n. 8.078/1990) and it studies the doctrine and jurisprudential understanding. The contribution of this search to the Law consists of verifying if the solution of conflicts where exists, in one side, the producer and, in the other side, the consumer the vulnerable part of the consume relation, which object refers to products and services, through the arbitration, attends the legal and constitutional requisites to obtain a just process, that is to say, it is pretended to analyse if there is legal possibility in the use of the arbitration in the solution of conflicts of consume and if the consumers interests and rights are really being protected when the consumer controversies are submitted to that private jurisdiction form

No description available.

Le moyen d’ordre public joue un rôle fondamental dans le contentieux relevant de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. Ce moyen peut être défini comme celui qui tend à la garantie des règles et valeurs essentielles de l’ordre juridique européen. Il poursuit une finalité résolument objective et tend à la garantie des répartitions des compétences juridictionnelles et décisionnelles, au respect des formes essentielles de toutes procédures, au respect de certains droits fondamentaux d’ordre essentiellement procédural, voire à la sauvegarde de certaines règles substantielles. Dans l’intérêt objectif de la collectivité des justiciables, ce moyen tend ainsi à garantir les équilibres constitutionnels inhérents à la construction européenne en assurant le rôle de chaque acteur dans le déroulement régulier des procédures. Le moyen d’ordre public joue de manière variable dans l’ensemble des procédures contentieuses relevant de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. Il est impératif et s’impose tant au juge qu’aux parties. Il doit être examiné et relevé d’office par le juge dès lors qu’il est de nature à influencer la solution du litige. L’obligation du juge s’accommode néanmoins d’une certaine souplesse. Ce moyen peut être invoqué par les parties en dehors des règles de droit commun régissant la recevabilité des moyens. Relevé d’office par le juge ou invoqué par une partie, le moyen d’ordre public doit être soumis au débat contradictoire entre les parties. Un courant jurisprudentiel récent tend ainsi à subjectiviser le régime du moyen d’ordre public au vu des exigences du procès équitable. / Grounds of public policy are of fundamental importance in legal proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). They may be defined as grounds intended to safeguard the fundamental rules and values of the European legal order. They pursue a resolutely objective aim and are intended to maintain the allocation of judicial and decision-making powers, to uphold the procedural requirements of all proceedings, to uphold fundamental rights which are essentially procedural in nature, and even to protect the substance of certain legal norms. In the objective interest of the general public, they are intended to safeguard the constitutional balances forming an integral part of European construction by ensuring the participation of every party in the lawful conduct of proceedings. Grounds of public policy play a variable part in proceedings before the CJEU. They are imperative and binding upon both the Court and the parties. They must be examined and, where they determine the outcome of the proceedings, raised ex officio by the judge. However, the Court’s obligation is subject to some flexibility. Grounds of public policy may be raised by the parties regardless of general admissibility requirements. Whether they are raised ex officio by the Court or put forward by a party, such grounds must be subject to an exchange of argument between the parties. Thus, a recent line of case-law seeks to reconcile the rules governing grounds of public policy with the requirements of the right to a fair trial.

Alors que la scène du droit semble célébrer le triomphe de l’écriture juridique, on est obligé de se poser la question de l’impact du « tout écrit » sur l’oralité juridique et de rechercher, si besoin était, la place actuelle de cette dernière en droit privé. Il est vrai que l’oralité est source d’insécurité de par ses deux caractéristiques principales : la volatilité et la versatilité. Pour autant, des vecteurs sécurisés de l’oralité existent. On est aujourd’hui en capacité d’assurer une sécurité quant à la parole et de lui conférer un caractère fiable ou pérenne ou de lui assigner un cadre, une structure permettant de développer un habitus institutionnel. L’oralité juridique demeure une notion importante en droit français mais mal définie et à caractère évolutif. Il pour autant est permis de douter que l’écriture constitue, partout et toujours, un progrès. Si l’écriture insiste surtout sur le message qu’elle véhicule et tend à l’anonymat des relations sociales, l’oralité valorise l’individualisation des rapports sociaux. L’oralité présente des caractéristiques principales essentielles telles que la rapidité, la facilité et la simplicité. L’oralité est également nécessaire au soutien des principes généraux d’organisation du procès. Elle présente des qualités indéniables rendant son utilisation indispensable, mais surtout l’oralité a vocation à replacer au centre du rapport d’obligation ou au centre du procès l’individu, source de cette oralité. L’oralité est loin du "déclinisme" qu’on lui prédit et ses apports sont essentiels. C’est la faveur traditionnelle pour l’oralité qui se trouvera ici rappelée / Nowadays the increasing number and complexity of new additional texts congest the Law. As a consequence, we can ask the question of the impact of writing on legal orality. Thus, it is required to look for the current place of orality in private law. It is true that orality is a source of insecurity because of two main features : volatility and versatility. However, there are some secured flows when using orality. Nowadays, we are able to ensure security of speech and to award it a lasting character. Also here, the possibility exists to assign to it a framework, a structure allowing to develop institutional customs. Legal orality remains an important concept in French Law, despite the current lack of structure. Whether in contractual or irrefutable proof or in procedural law, orality does not hold same guarantees as written words and without the transfer into writings, orality remains a source of concern. But we can be skeptical about the writing as a progress. If writing pays particular attention on the message and moves towards the anonymous of social relationships, orality highlights individualization of social relationships. Orality has key characteristics such as speed, ease and simplicity. Orality is also required to support of the general principles of the organization of the trial. It shows undeniable qualities making its use indispensable, but above all, orality has the vocation to put the person in the center of the contract or in the center of the trial. Today, orality is still far from the predicted decline as its contribution remains essential. It is the traditional favor for orality which will be recalled here

O presente estudo, partindo da premissa de que o processo, assim, como o próprio direito, sofre intensa influência dos valores sociais e das determinantes históricas, políticas e culturais da sociedade em que se insere, tem por escopo analisar a influência das concepções instrumentalista e publicista, do robustecimento de seu conteúdo ético e das demais premissas metodológicas do processo civil atual, na denominada divisão de trabalho entre juiz e das partes em todo o iter procedimental, e, notadamente, na atividade probatória, de sorte a reconhecer, com fundamento no modelo constitucional do processo civil brasileiro, a existência de autênticos deveres das partes e do juiz em matéria de prova e analisar as consequências jurídicas de sua inobservância. / This study, working on the premise that procedural law, as well as law itself, suffers intense influence of social values and societys historical, political and cultural determinants in which it operates, has the scope of analyzing the influence of the instrumentalist and publicist conceptions, the toughening of its ethical content and other methodological premises of the current civil procedure in the denominated division of labor between judge and parties throughout the procedural path, and notably in the evidentiary activity, so as to recognize, based on the constitutional model of the Brazilian civil procedure, the existence of genuine obligations of the parties and the judge regarding evidentiary matter and analyze the legal consequences of their noncompliance.