Submitted by Silvana Teresinha Dornelles Studzinski (sstudzinski) on 2016-05-10T16:49:19Z No. of bitstreams: 1 KARIN LOIZE HOLLER MUSSI BERSOT_.pdf: 911322 bytes, checksum: 750ddf207ccec7b28276f8f3256db197 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-05-10T16:49:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 KARIN LOIZE HOLLER MUSSI BERSOT_.pdf: 911322 bytes, checksum: 750ddf207ccec7b28276f8f3256db197 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-04-23 / Nenhuma / Esta pesquisa aborda o Princípio do Contraditório e, analisando-o durante o período do Estado Liberal ao Estado Democrático de Direito, objetiva subsidiar uma discussão acerca de um modelo de processo civil que seja adequado ao Estado Democrático de Direito. Através da exposição da evolução histórica das teorias do processo e do contraditório, passa pelos três paradigmas da história do direito: Estado Liberal, Estado Social e Estado Democrático de Direito. O problema de pesquisa está em como formar um processo civil comprometido com as bases paradigmáticas deste Estado Democrático de Direito. O objetivo geral é analisar as principais correntes do pensamento processual civil, com enfoque na forma como se realizava o contraditório, a partir do liberalismo processual e da socialização do processo, bem como traçar as condições de possibilidade para que o processo civil esteja comprometido com o paradigma do Estado Democrático de Direito. A metodologia utilizada é a pesquisa bibliográfica e o método de abordagem o fenomenológico-hermenêutico, considerando o contexto histórico em que os fatos ocorreram. O método de procedimento é o histórico, pois trata dos aspectos do processo civil, com ênfase no contraditório, desde o Estado Liberal até a cultura jurídica dos dias de hoje. Como resultado, tem-se que para se obter a transformação social almejada pelo Estado Democrático de Direito, a aplicação e interpretação da norma jurídica, em conformidade com a Constituição de 1988, deve ser realizada em respeito aos Princípios Constitucionais, com destaque para o Princípio do Contraditório. Esta pesquisa conclui que para o Princípio do Contraditório ser plenamente concretizado, é necessário que o juiz ouça o cidadão, garantindo-lhe um exercício de direito de defesa muito mais amplo que uma mera formalidade a ser cumprida. O contraditório deve ser enfrentado como um instituto essencial de auxílio na aproximação do processo com a verdade material e, consequentemente, com o decidir justo no caso concreto, exigindo um constante diálogo entre todos os envolvidos no processo, que devem estar em posição hierárquica similar, sendo plenamente concretizado no ordenamento, para sua eficácia social, obtida mediante a participação direta de todos os sujeitos do processo. / This research approaches the Principle of Contradictory and in analyzing it during the period from the Liberal State to the Democratic State of Law, aims to base a discussion regarding a civil process model that is suited to Democratic State of Law. Through exposure the historical evolution of theories about the process and the contradictory, passes through the three paradigms of the Law History: the Liberal State, Social State and Democratic State. The research problem is how to form civil proceedings committed to the paradigmatic foundations of this Democratic State of Law. The overall goal is analyze the main currents of civil procedure thought, focusing on how they accomplished the contradictory from the procedural liberalism and the socialization of the case, as well as trace the possibility conditions so that the process be committed to the paradigm of Democratic State of Law. The methodology used is the literature research and approach method is the phenomenologicalhermeneutic, considering the historical context in which the events occurred. The procedure method is historical because comes to aspects of civil procedure, with emphasis on the contradictory, since the Liberal State to the legal culture of today. As a result, we have that to obtain the social transformation desired by Democratic State of Law, the application and interpretation of legal standard, according to the 1988 Constitution, should be conducted in respect of Constitutional principles, especially the principle of Contradictory. This research concludes that to the Principle of Contradictory be fully achieved, it’s necessary that the judge listen the citizen, guaranteeing an exercise of the right of defense much wider than a mere formality to be fulfilled. The contradictory must be faced as an essential aid institute in approaching the case with the material truth and consequently the righteous decision in the specific case, requiring a constant dialogue between all involved in the process, which should be in a similar hierarchical position, being fully achieved in ordainment, to its social efficiency, obtained by direct participation of all subjects in the process.

This thesis offers to study “la transaction administrative” (agreement between two public agencies and a public agency and private individual in order to resolve conflict) in consideration of its legal environment: a transactional method of resolution administrative dispute can it validly grows into French law? It appears that the administrative transaction has developed where it is designated to do so. Promote this mode of dispute resolution assumed to clarify the definition and the legal regime. Here, like the transaction of private law, the administrative transaction is characterized by three elements: the existence of a dispute- under the administrative judge - an agreement and mutual concessions. Their apprehension is, however, subject to some adjustments to take account of the issues of administrative law that necessarily raise administrative disputes. This is a transaction largely inspired by the transaction of private law and slightly derogatory to common law that the Conseil d’Etat has shaped. The administrative transaction has been actually developed. However, a bigger development does not seem possible, at least in the short term, as the obstacles are significant. These are numerous, of heterogeneous nature and in some cases, hardly remediable. Neither the French legal system, nor the characteristics of the transaction allow a massive development of this dispute resolution. It is therefore likely that the administrative transaction remains in France, a secondary means of dispute resolution. But secondary does not necessarily mean minor, and if further progress is possible, the result of the administrative transaction is, essentially, very honourable. / La présente thèse se propose d’étudier la transaction administrative à l’aune de son environnement juridique : un mode transactionnel de règlement des litiges administratifs peut-il valablement se développer en droit français ? Il apparaît alors que la transaction administrative s’est développée là où elle est désignée pour ce faire. Promouvoir ce mode de règlement des litiges supposait d’en clarifier la définition et le régime juridique. En l’occurrence, comme la transaction de droit privé, la transaction administrative est caractérisée par trois éléments : l’existence d’un litige ─ relevant du juge administratif ─, un accord de volontés et des concessions réciproques. Leur appréhension fait, en revanche, l’objet de quelques adaptations de façon à tenir compte des problématiques du droit administratif que soulèvent nécessairement les litiges administratifs. C’est donc une transaction largement inspirée de la transaction de droit privé et faiblement dérogatoire au droit commun que le Conseil d’Etat a façonnée. Depuis, la transaction administrative s’est effectivement développée. Toutefois, un plus grand développement encore ne semble pas envisageable, du moins à court terme, tant les entraves sont importantes. Celles-ci sont nombreuses, de nature hétéroclite et pour certaines, difficilement remédiables. Ni le système juridique français, ni les caractéristiques propres de la transaction ne se prêtent à un développement massif de ce mode de règlement des litiges. Il est donc probable que la transaction administrative demeure, en droit français, un mode secondaire de règlement des litiges. Mais secondaire ne signifie pas nécessairement mineur, et si des progrès sont encore envisageables, le bilan de la transaction administrative est, pour l’essentiel, très honorable.

L'arbitre représente le juge dans la procédure d’arbitrage: il tranche, juge et détient la balance de la justice dans cette procédure. Bien que ses décisions soient des sentences arbitrales, elles n’ont pas la force exécutoire d’un jugement judiciaire qui impliquerait une sanction en cas de non-exécution de celle-ci par la partie contre laquelle elle a été rendue. Ainsi, les thèses selon lesquelles les rapports du juge et de l’arbitre sont conflictuels, selon lesquelles les pouvoirs attribués à l’arbitre pour mener sa mission à terme et le principe d’incompétence du juge étatique dans le déroulement d’un arbitrage interne ou international, deviennent réfutables. Soumises pour contrôle et à l’appui du juge étatique, l’instance arbitrale et la sentence arbitrale s'intègrent dans l'ordre juridictionnel. Elles doivent cohabiter ensemble dans une même atmosphère juridique. Le juge dans cette optique a l’obligation de protéger et de respecter la volonté des parties, tout en veillant au bon déroulement de la procédure arbitrale. Ainsi, au regard, des nouvelles réformes en arbitrage en vigueur au Québec, en France et dans plusieurs autres États, les rapports entre les tribunaux judiciaires et l’arbitrage ont évolué vers l’entente, la collaboration et la complémentarité. De plus, les textes légaux et les règles qui gouvernent la procédure arbitrale sont d’une grande importance dans notre exposé, car elles contribuent à la démonstration de ces nouveaux rapports. Ce sont, en effet le respect des règles et la possibilité pour les parties de les manipuler qui rendent l’arbitrage attrayant. Le présent mémoire vise à démontrer l’évolution des rapports entre le juge et l’arbitre au regard de récentes réformes dans le droit de l’arbitrage québécois parallèlement au droit de l’arbitrage français. Notre stratégie consistera à identifier les pouvoirs attribués au juge étatique et à analyser la place de choix réservée au juge étatique dans cette procédure. Puisqu’il s’avère être un appui précieux à l'arbitrage, il conviendrait de redéfinir sa place dans cette procédure, afin de dissiper toutes les incompréhensions qui ont pu exister. / The arbitrator represents the judge in the arbitration proceedings: he decides, judges and holds the balance of justice in the arbitration proceedings. Although its decisions are arbitral awards, they do not have the enforceable force of a judicial judgment that would involve a penalty in the event of non-performance by the party against whom it was issued. Thus, the arguments according to which the reports of the judge and the arbitrator are conflicting, according to which the powers assigned to the arbitrator to complete his mission and the principle of incompetence of the state judge in the conduct of an internal or international arbitration, become refutable. Submitted for review and in support of the State judge, the arbitral body and the arbitral award shall be incorporated into the judicial order. They must live together in the same legal atmosphere. The judge in this regard has the obligation to protect and respect the will of the parties, while ensuring the smooth conduct of the arbitral proceedings. In light of the new arbitration reforms in force in Quebec, France and several other states, the relationship between the courts and arbitration has evolved towards understanding, collaboration and complementarity. In addition, the legal texts and rules governing arbitral proceedings are of great importance in our presentation, as they contribute to the demonstration of these new reports. It is, in fact, the respect of the rules and the possibility for the parties to manipulate them that make the arbitration attractive. The purpose of this brief is to demonstrate the evolution of the relationship between the judge and the arbitrator in light of recent reforms in the law of Quebec arbitration in parallel with the law of French arbitration. Our strategy will be to identify the powers assigned to the state judge and to analyse the place reserved for the state judge in this procedure. Since it proves to be a valuable support for arbitration, it would be appropriate to redefine its place in this procedure, in order to dispel any misunderstandings that may have existed.