Si le principe de précaution a pour berceau la sphère environnementale, il s'est détaché de cette dernière pour assez vite investir le domaine de la santé humaine et acquérir une certaine autonomie. Son histoire reste très liée à la jurisprudence communautaire quant à sa définition et à son régime juridique. Si de nombreux pays l'ont plus ou moins bien inséré au sein de leurs droits nationaux, il occupe une place de choix en France depuis 2005 où, inscrit dans la Constitution grâce à la Charte de l'environnement, il est devenu une norme ayant le rang le plus élevé. Permettant de prendre des mesures de précaution quand une activité est susceptible de causer un dommage grave pour l'environnement et la santé humaine, il semble être la réponse la plus adaptée à l'impossibilité de consentir à l'incertitude de la science. C'est au niveau de la conception du médicament que la philosophie du principe de précaution se trouve le plus en harmonie. Afin de mieux le caractériser, le principe de précaution peut être rapproché de la notion de précaution qui est présente depuis la nuit des temps en santé. "Primum non nocere" est la règle de conduite des professionnels de santé. Le principe de précaution, qui est une sorte d'outils dans la gestion des risques hypothétiques, renferme deux obligations: une obligation d'évaluation du risque et une obligation de prévention. S'il est doté d'une fonction préventive face au risque incertain, il n'est pas dépourvu d'une mission réparatrice.Son régime juridique concerne tant le droit public que le droit privé, et les juges ne peuvent plus ignorer ce principe perçu comme une clé pour l'avenir. / If the principle of precaution has its roots in the sphere of the environment, it has more recently found relevance, indeed a certain independence, within the domain of human health. With regards to its definition and to its legal regime, its history remains closely linked to community jurisprudence. Many countries have, to a greater or lesser extent, included it within their national rights, and since the environmental Charter of 2005 it enjoys à "special place" in France, where it is now written into the Constitution and has become one of the mostly highly valued norms. When an activity could cause serious harm to the environment or to human health it would appear that the most suitable response, while not directly admitting to the uncertainty of science, would be to ensure that precautionary measures are taken. Philosophically, the principle of precaution finds itself most in harmony when applied to the development of new medicines. To characterise best the principle of precaution, it can be likened to the notion of precaution present in health care since time immemorial. "primum non nocere" is the first rule of health care professionals. The principle of precaution, a useful tool for the management of hypothetical risk, encompasses two imperatives: that of evaluating risk and that of prevention. If on the one hand it is charged with a preventive function in the face of uncertain risk, that is not to say that it is deprived on the other of a reparatory mission. Its legal regime concerns as well public law as private law, and judges can no longer ignore this principle, now seen as "a key for the future".

À partir de la première décennie du XXe siècle, tous les pays de l’Europe occidentale sont intervenus dans le secteur du cinéma pour poursuivre des objectifs publics, à la fois culturels et économiques, qui ont évolué au rythme des régimes politiques successifs. Le droit public du cinéma s’est donc développé autour de trois formes d’intervention étatique : le contrôle des œuvres, la promotion de l’industrie et de l’art cinématographiques et la régulation du marché du cinéma. À l’heure actuelle, le cinéma vit des transformations économiques et technologiques importantes, qui perturbent le droit public du cinéma au point d’en remettre en discussion la nécessité. Notre travail de recherche vise à démontrer qu’une fois qu’un État considère que la protection de la diversité et de la liberté de la création, la garantie d’une offre cinématographique plurielle et la protection de la sensibilité des mineurs sont essentiels pour le développement de la société démocratique, l’intervention publique dans le domaine du cinéma s’impose. La France et l’Italie sont à cet égard deux pays emblématiques. Parmi les premiers à élaborer un droit public du cinéma fort et étendu, les deux pays passent de la construction d’un modèle normatif commun à une divergence radicale de leurs législations en matière de cinéma. La comparaison entre la France et l’Italie montre, tout d’abord, la nécessité constante du droit public du cinéma pour la promotion de la diversité cinématographique et la protection des mineurs. Ensuite, elle met en valeur à quel point l’efficacité du droit public du cinéma dépend de la capacité du législateur d’interpréter les transformations du marché et de la technologie et de les traduire en droit. Enfin, la confrontation des deux droits indique qu’à l’ère du numérique, l’axe d’intervention publique le plus important devient la régulation de la concurrence du marché interne au cinéma et du marché de ses moyens de diffusion. / In the cinema industry, since the early twentieth century, all the Western European countries pursued different objectives within their respective cultural and economical policies. These were based accordingly to their varying systems of government.European cinema public law developed according to three public intervention modalities. These modalities are the following key aspects; film censorship, the promotion of the art and industry of the cinema, and finally cinema market regulation.Currently the cinema is going through important economic and technological transformations. These changes cloud over the law of cinema to such an extent that the necessity of which is being questioned.This thesis means to prove the necessity of state intervention in film to protect cultural diversity, freedom of expression, and underage sensibility in the virtual vehicle of film. This thesis proposes that if State considers these concepts important for a democratic society then it is vitally essential to intervene. In this light, Italy and France are two emblematic countries that are among the first to elaborate a strong articulated public law of cinema. France and Italy have moved from the construction of a common normative model to a framework of radically diverging laws. The comparison between these two countries demonstrates some principal dynamics. The most imperative of these is the permanent need for a common cinema law oriented to the promotion of cinema diversity and the protection of the underage population. Furthermore, this comparison underlines how much the efficacy of public cinema law depends on the legislator’s capacity to interpret the market of cinema and relevant technological transformations and thus, how they are integration into the law. Finally, this Franco-Italian comparison points out that in today’s digital era, the most important public intervention becomes the regulation of the following two base concepts. Regulating the cinema’s market competition is essential in this public intervention. It is equally critical for cinema law to allow equal access to the diffusion of cinematic works in the varying media outlets such as television and the Internet.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:22:49Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Claudio Penedo Madureira.pdf: 1548963 bytes, checksum: 885287097fa585f00cf0f8791dd13ae0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-05-12 / I focus the problem of litigation in the legal process, but under the view of needed compatibility of administrative acting in the boundaries imposed by positive-law order to the State intervention in the range of legal possibilities of the citizen. The discussion proposed here is important because the State, as an organic element of political institutionalization of a society supports in all its aspects several possibilities and claims that lead it to legal litigations dayly. The fact is that Public Administration and its agents are subject to the rules of written legality (here understood as juridicity in order to cover the following of rules that are part of the Constitution) and have their activities linked to the achievement of public interest (here understood as State and society interest observing the established juridical order). This finding is of crucial importance for understanding the litigation problem in the public field, since the incidence of strict legality and need of public interest achievement condition the state activity to a correct application do Law. The achievement of this purpose presupposes interpretative activity and not always the public agents are prepared to act, which explains diversity in the basis of professional training that are part of the Administration. Like this problems outcome in the realization of necessary acts to the administrative functions, based on mistakes in the Law application. It may happen that Administration denies usufruct to subjective rights by order or from it imposes the administered people obligations and punishment not authorized by the normative terms. These mistakes need to be corrected by Administration under the hazard and risk of inferring offense to strict legality and of not promoting properly the achievement of public interest. The importance of Public Advocacy and its participants is here to whom the Constitution (articles 131 e 132) gives assistance to the public service in the administrative processes by means of which these professionals can have the internal control of juridicity of the administrative acting (article 70). As a consequence of this juridical control, when acts practiced by the Administration contradicts Law, the public lawyers must direct their review in the administrative range. It is their duty to use tools that are given to them to promote the anticipation of litigious demand closure that the validity of these same acts are discussed, for example, not presenting defense or legal resources and promoting conciliation in the process. These elements lead to the conclusion that it is incompatible to the administrative law system, specially to the strict legality and with the need of achieving public interest, the understanding according to which it is for the public lawyers , as professionals of the linked legal activity support the unsustainable or question the unquestionable in the processes they are linked to / Abordo o problema da litigiosidade no processo, mas sob o enfoque da necessária compatibilidade do agir administrativo aos limites impostos pelo ordenamento jurídicopositivo à intervenção do Estado na esfera das disponibilidades jurídicas do cidadão. A discussão proposta é relevante porque o Estado, como elemento orgânico da institucionalização política de uma sociedade, sustenta, em todas as suas emanações, numerosas responsabilidades e pretensões, que o conduzem, cotidianamente, aos litígios judiciais. Ocorre que, como cediço, a Administração Pública e seus agentes estão sujeitos aos ditames da legalidade estrita (aqui compreendida como juridicidade, para também abarcar o cumprimento das regras e princípios que integram a Constituição) e têm sua atuação vinculada à realização do interesse público (aqui compreendido como interesse do Estado e da sociedade na observância da ordem jurídica estabelecida). Essa constatação tem crucial importância para a compreensão do problema da litigiosidade na esfera pública, visto que a incidência da legalidade estrita e a necessidade da realização do interesse público condicionam a atuação estatal a uma correta aplicação do Direito. É certo que o atendimento desse reclame pressupõe atividade interpretativa, e que nem sempre os agentes públicos estão preparados para exercitá-la, o que em parte se explica em parte pela diversidade na base de formação profissional das pessoas que integram a Administração. Com isso, surgem, em concreto, problemas na realização de atos necessários à execução da função administrativa, pautados em equívocos na aplicação do Direito. Assim, pode ocorrer, por exemplo, de a Administração negar fruição a direitos subjetivos assegurados pelo ordenamento, ou dela impor aos administrados obrigações e sanções não autorizadas pelos textos normativos. Esses equívocos precisam ser corrigidos pela Administração, sob pena e risco de se depreender, na casuística, ofensa à legalidade estrita e de não se promover adequadamente a realização do interesse público. Nisso reside a importância da Advocacia Pública e de seus integrantes (os advogados públicos, também designados como procuradores), a quem a Constituição (arts. 131 e 132) confere o atendimento ao poder público nos processos administrativos (atividade consultiva) e judiciais (atividade contenciosa), no curso dos quais esses profissionais exercem, ainda, o controle interno da juridicidade do agir administrativo (art. 70). Como decorrência desse controle jurídico, sempre que verificarem que atos praticados pela Administração contrariam o Direito, os advogados públicos devem orientar a sua revisão na esfera administrativa (atividade consultiva). Cumpre-lhes, ainda, utilizarem-se dos mecanismos que lhes são conferidos pelo ordenamento para promover a antecipação do desfecho de demandas judiciais em que se discute a validade desses mesmos atos viciados, por exemplo, deixando de apresentar defesas/recursos e promovendo a conciliação no processo (atividade contenciosa). Esses elementos induzem a conclusão de que é incompatível com o regime jurídico administrativo, em especial com a legalidade estrita e com a necessidade de realização do interesse público, a compreensão segundo a qual compete aos advogados públicos, como profissionais de atividade jurídica vinculada, sustentar o insustentável , ou contestar incontestável , nos processos em que atuam

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:23:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Allan Moraes.pdf: 636402 bytes, checksum: ab34061c46de88a13d40ef08e3553eb3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-09-08 / The present work addresses the tax jurisdiction concept by investigating the principles and limits governing the tax collection activity, in its multiple forms. The constitutional rules that apply to the lawmaking process to create taxes, as well as to ensure the fulfillment of the tax jurisdiction by the political entities, are also discussed. In this sense, the tax jurisdiction is seen as an instrument for the design of the Federative State, a safeguard set forth by the Federal Constitution alongside other rules that guide the tax collection activity, allowing, requiring and prohibiting such conduct / O presente trabalho trata da competência tributária por meio da investigação dos limites e princípios que regulam a atividade tributária, em suas várias manifestações. Aborda as normas constitucionais que tratam da atividade de legislar com vistas à criação de tributos, bem assim as que têm por finalidade garantir o pleno exercício da competência por cada uma das pessoas políticas de direito interno. Nesse sentido, visualiza a competência como instrumento de formatação do Estado Federativo, garantia prevista na Constituição Federal ao lado das demais normas que tratam da atividade tributária permitindo, obrigando e proibindo condutas dessa natureza

La première partie de la thèse est consacrée à une comparaison synchronique portant sur l’histoireet les fondements du droit à l’éducation, ainsi que sur les composantes du droit à l’éducation (disponibilité,accès, permanence, acceptabilité, adaptabilité et qualité de celle-ci) et la manière dont ils ont été traduits dansla législation interne actuelle. Les catégories d’analyse alors retenues nous ont plus précisément permis deréaliser en la matière une micro-comparaison, c’est-à-dire une comparaison portant sur les acteurs du systèmescolaire, leurs fonctions, leurs compétences, leurs obligations et garanties.La deuxième partie de la thèse est consacrée à une analyse de la nature et de la portée du droit à l´éducationdans les deux pays, ainsi qu’à sa consécration par la voie constitutionnelle, légale, jurisprudentielle, et grâceaux normes supranationales.La troisième partie de la thèse est consacrée à une comparaison de la transformation, au regard des évolutionsqui se produisent sur la scène globale, des institutions et des politiques publiques relatives dans chaque pays àl’éducation. Ceci a permis de comprendre le rôle des organismes internationaux dans la création de nouveauxréférentiels universels, et la manière dont ces derniers ont été incorporés dans les législations internes. Endernier lieu, il a été procédé à une analyse de l’évaluation des systèmes scolaires faite à partir des indicateursnéolibéraux, qui a permis de comparer l’organisation et la gestion des systèmes scolaires des deux pays.Les conclusions résultant de l'observation des deux systèmes juridiques ont abouti à mettre en exergue lesprincipes et fondements communs qui existent dans le monde occidental et qui ont facilité l’harmonisationsouple du droit public international relatif à l’éducation. / The first part of this thesis is devoted to a synchronic comparison of the history and foundationsof the right to education, as well as the components of the right to education (availability, access, permanence,acceptability, adaptability and quality thereof) and how they have been translated into current nationallegislation. The categories of analysis used therefore have specifically made it possible to carry out a microcomparisonin this area, that is to say, a comparison of the stakeholders in the school system, their functions,powers, duties and guarantees.The second part of this thesis is devoted to an analysis of the nature and scope of the right to education in bothcountries, and how it has been enshrined by judicial, legal and constitutional means, and thanks tosupranational standards.The third part of this thesis is devoted to a comparison of the transformation, in the light of changes occurringin the global arena, of institutions and public policies in each country with respect to education. This hasmade it possible to understand the role of international organizations in creating new universal standards, andhow these standards have been incorporated into domestic legislation. Finally, an analysis of the evaluation ofschool systems based on neoliberal indicators has been undertaken, which has made it possible to compare theorganization and management of education systems of both countries.The findings resulting from the observation of both legal systems have led to highlight the common principlesand foundations that exist in the Western world and that have facilitated the flexible harmonization ofinternational public law on education.

L'existence de mécanismes efficaces de contrôle de l'activité administrative est une problématique commune aux pays européens. Le contrôle des juges y apparaît fondamental. Il est un gage de la soumission de l'administration au droit, via le respect du principe de légalité. Le rôle qu'ils jouent ne selimite toutefois pas à cette simple fonction. C'est ce que tend à démontrer une étude comparée globale du recours pour excès de pouvoir français et la judicial review anglaise. Alors que chacun de ces deux mécanismes apparaît comme une forme limitée de contrôle de la légalité, ils ont en réalité une portée plus étendue. Sous l'effet du développement des contraintes pesant sur l'action administrative, conséquence de l'enrichissement normatif des ordres juridiques, le rôle des juges s'accroît. La place qu'ils occupent au sein des institutions nationales doit être clairement définie, afin d'en assurer la légitimité.N'étant plus uniquement les garants de la volonté d'un Parlement de plus en plus contraint, les juges voient les fondements de leur rôle être renouvelés. La liberté dont ils disposent va croissante. Ce mouvement révèle leur double figure : tantôt acteurs du contrôle de légalité, et principal outil de soumission de l'administration à un droit en constant développement, ils sont également un moteur de ce mouvement. Cela leur permet d'en fixer les limites afin de ne pas scléroser l'activité administrative, elle aussi porteuse d'une légitimité propre. L'étude comparée du recours pour excès de pouvoir et de la judicial review permet la mise en lumière de cette dualité : les juges en définissent les différentes facettes et participent ainsi activement à la définition de leur propre rôle. / The existence of efficient mechanisms of control for administrative activity is a common problem in European countries. Judicial control is of primary importance. It is a guarentee of the respect of law by public authorities, through the principle of legality. But, the role of judges is not only defined by this function. This can be demonstrated by a global comparison of the French recours pour excès de pouvoir and the English judicial review. While both mechanisms seem to allow a limited control of legality, the picture is not as simple. Because of the development of the strains on administrative action, due to the normative enrichment of legal orders, the role of the judiciary is extending. The position of judges within national institutions has to be clearly defined, in order to guarantee their legitimacy.As they can no longer be described as protectors of the will of Parliament, the foundations of their role is reassessed. Their discretionary power is increasing. It reveals their dualiaty: they are active in the control of legality, and as such they are the main instrument of the submission of public authorities to a developing legality, and they are also actors of this movment. As such, they draw limits in order not to ossify administrative activity, which is also legitimate. The comparision between the recours pour excès de pouvoir and judicial review can reveal this duality : the judges define its various aspects and actively participate to the definition of their own role.

La preuve économique est un objet complexe situé à la confluence du droit et de l’économie. Elle est un outil de dialogue entre ces deux disciplines. Dans la mécanique du droit, elle se retrouve lorsqu’une analyse économique est nécessaire à sa réalisation. En tant qu’elle supporte un discours économique, elle oblige le droit à rechercher des objets particuliers, susceptibles de se substituer au raisonnement juridique. Mais en tant que preuve juridique, elle interroge sur le degré d’assujettissement du droit par rapport à l’économie. Elle apparaît donc comme un moyen de conciliation entre les exigences de l’économie et de la science économique d’un côté, et la réalisation des finalités du droit de l’autre. Cette conciliation est effectuée par l’autorité administrative dont les activités normatives et de régulation, notamment, en influencent la formation. Le contexte administratif n’est pas neutre. Par ailleurs, la pratique du juge administratif et du juge de l’Union, réalisant son office en tant que juge administratif, lui offre un cadre procédural d’administration qui conditionne la façon dont le dialogue entre le droit et l’économie s’opère concrètement. / The economic evidence is a complex subject just at the confront of Law and Economics. It plays a role of dialogue between these two fields. As a subject of the legal system, it appears when an economic analysis is necessary fulfilling the Law, it substitues legal reasoning for economic analysis. However, it questions how deep is the subjection of law facing economics. More precisely, it questions how Law and Economics uses each other. The economic evidence is a tool for conciliation between ends and purposes of Laws and requirements of economic thought and necessities of economic game. It is to the Administrative authority to fulfill the conciliation, under the constant review of the judge. The administrative law context has a great influence on the way different requirements are combined.

Over the last couple of decades or so, comparative public law scholars have been reporting a dramatic increase in the power and influence of judicial institutions worldwide. One obvious effect of this “judicialization of politics” is to highlight legitimacy concerns associated with the exercise of judicial power. Indeed, how do courts attain and retain their legitimacy particularly in the context of their increasing political relevance? To answer this question I develop a novel theory of strategic legitimacy cultivation. The theory is developed through an application of the institutionalist branch of the rational choice theory which suggests that institutional structures, rules, and imperatives provide behavioural incentives and disincentives for relevant actors who respond by acting strategically in order to attain favourable outcomes. The theory shows that courts cultivate legitimacy by exhibiting strategic sensitivities to factors operating in the external, political environment. In particular, legitimacy cultivation requires courts to devise decisions that are sensitive to the state of public opinion, that avoid overt clashes and entanglements with key political actors, that do not overextend the outreach of judicial activism, and that employ politically sensitive jurisprudence. The theory is tested in the context of the Supreme Court of Canada through a mixed-method research design that combines a quantitative analysis of a large number of cases, case-study approaches, and cross-policy comparisons. One of the central findings of the dissertation is that understanding judicial institutions and judicial policymaking influence requires taking close accounts of external contexts within which courts operate.

Over the last couple of decades or so, comparative public law scholars have been reporting a dramatic increase in the power and influence of judicial institutions worldwide. One obvious effect of this “judicialization of politics” is to highlight legitimacy concerns associated with the exercise of judicial power. Indeed, how do courts attain and retain their legitimacy particularly in the context of their increasing political relevance? To answer this question I develop a novel theory of strategic legitimacy cultivation. The theory is developed through an application of the institutionalist branch of the rational choice theory which suggests that institutional structures, rules, and imperatives provide behavioural incentives and disincentives for relevant actors who respond by acting strategically in order to attain favourable outcomes. The theory shows that courts cultivate legitimacy by exhibiting strategic sensitivities to factors operating in the external, political environment. In particular, legitimacy cultivation requires courts to devise decisions that are sensitive to the state of public opinion, that avoid overt clashes and entanglements with key political actors, that do not overextend the outreach of judicial activism, and that employ politically sensitive jurisprudence. The theory is tested in the context of the Supreme Court of Canada through a mixed-method research design that combines a quantitative analysis of a large number of cases, case-study approaches, and cross-policy comparisons. One of the central findings of the dissertation is that understanding judicial institutions and judicial policymaking influence requires taking close accounts of external contexts within which courts operate.

No description available.