Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-15T19:33:41Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2011-02-16 / Fundo Mackenzie de Pesquisa / Among the fundamental rights we have the right to education, a constitutional right extended to all, pursuant to provisions of Article 205 of the Federal Constitution [of Brazil]. It ranks as one of the most significant among the social rights, being conceived of within the notion of second dimension rights. They are the result of the process of constitutionalization of human rights, seeking to bring assertion and effectiveness into the principle of human dignity. Such rights impose upon the Public Power the enforcement of the duty of positive performance, consisting of a mandate to do or facere on the part of the State. This work had the general scope of analyzing the possibility of the State to exempt itself from the constitutional must of delivering and guaranteeing basic education with grounds on allegation of the theory of reservation based on feasibility. Given the objectives of the research, the approach utilized was a qualitative one. Thus, the right to a basic, mandatory and free-ofcharge education was analyzed, as erected to the category of a public, subjective right pursuant to the terms of Article 208, Paragraph 1, of the Federal Constitution/88, which provides that "access to mandatory and free teaching is a public, subjective right", following recent modification brought in by Constitutional Amendment No. 59, dated November 11, 2009. It has been concluded that the State may not exempt itself from its constitutional duty as to delivering and guaranteeing basic education, a fundamental right of social nature belonging to the human person, as it resorts to clause of "reservation based on feasibility", even within a limited scale of choices over public policies and a universe bound by scarce financial resources and restrained by public budget. / Entre os direitos fundamentais, temos o direito à educação, direito constitucional deferido a todos, nos termos do art. 205 da Constituição Federal de 1988. Qualificase como um dos direitos sociais mais expressivos, subsumindo-se à noção dos direitos de segunda dimensão. Trata-se de resultado do processo de constitucionalização dos direitos humanos, com vistas à positivação e efetividade do princípio da dignidade humana. Referidos direitos impõem ao Poder Público a satisfação do dever de prestação positiva, consistente em um facere do Estado.Este trabalho teve como objetivo geral analisar a possibilidade de o Estado exonerar-se do dever constitucional de oferecer e garantir a educação básica com fundamento na alegação da teoria da reserva do possível. Tendo em vista os objetivos da pesquisa, utilizou-se a abordagem qualitativa. Assim, analisamos o direito ao ensino obrigatório e gratuito, erigido à categoria de direito público subjetivo, nos termos do artigo 208, parágrafo 1º., da CF/88, que dispõe que o acesso ao ensino obrigatório e gratuito é direito público subjetivo , após recente alteração feita pela Emenda Constitucional nº. 59, de 11 de novembro de 2009. Verificou-se que o Estado não pode se eximir de seu dever constitucional quanto ao oferecimento e à garantia do ensino obrigatório e gratuito, direito fundamental de natureza social da pessoa humana, ao invocar a cláusula da "reserva do possível", que consiste no fenômeno econômico da limitação de recursos financeiros pelo Estado, mesmo dentro de uma cartela limitada de escolhas por políticas públicas e de um universo de recursos financeiros escassos e limitados pelo orçamento público.

Notion protéiforme, le principe de transparence compte, au nombre de ses composantes, le droit d’accès aux documents, qui en constitue l’aspect le plus saillant. Dans l’absolu, ce droit s’apparente également aux principes d’ouverture et de bonne administration, avec lesquels il entretient un rapport étroit. Historiquement, l’accès aux documents plonge ses racines dans les traditions constitutionnelles communes aux États membres. À cet égard, il convient de garder à l’esprit que les réglementations qui se sont succédées au sein de l’UE, lesquelles visaient à aménager l’accès aux documents détenus par les institutions, étaient toutes, sans exception, calquées sur les prescriptions nationales équivalentes, en vigueur dans les États membres. De manière atypique, l’évolution du droit d’accès s’articule autour d’un phénomène singulier : si ce droit a fait son entrée sur la scène juridique par le truchement du principe de transparence, il s’est graduellement émancipé de son aîné pour devenir un droit subjectif à part entière. Le champ heuristique décrit s’accompagne d’un second volet. L’autonomisation de l’accès aux documents se double en effet d’un constat : le droit d’accès fait désormais partie des attributs du citoyen de l’Union. Cet élément transparaît authentiquement de l’interprétation des exceptions au droit d’accès qui s’avère éminemment restrictive, conformément à la règle du « plus large accès possible aux documents ». En outre, l’accès aux documents génère, comme tel, des droits et des obligations : les bénéficiaires (« créanciers ») ont été toujours plus nombreux tandis que dans le même temps, on a assisté à la multiplication des acteurs assujettis au droit d’accès (« débiteurs »). En définitive, on s’achemine progressivement vers un nouveau droit fondamental. / The principle of transparency is a multifaceted notion. The most salient of its components is the right of access to documents. This right can be compared to the principles of open government and good administration, with which it is closely related. Historically, the roots of access to documents lie in the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. The regulations implemented over time within the EU, which were designed to grant access to the documents held by the institutions, were all modelled on existing national standards. Atypically, the development of the right of access is built around a peculiar phenomenon: while this right made its debut on the legal stage through the principle of transparency, it gradually became a subjective self-standing right. As the right of access to documents becomes an autonomous concept it has a further effect; the right of access to documents henceforth becomes part of the attributes of the citizen of the European Union. This leads to a narrow interpretation of the exceptions to the rights of access, conforming to the rule “the greatest access possible to documents”. The access to documents generates rights and obligations; the beneficiaries (“creditors”) have been numerous, but at the same time there has been an increase in the number of actors subject to the right of access (“debtors”). We are progressing to a new fundamental right.

Parce qu’elle est une clé de compréhension du déclenchement de la responsabilité civile, l’anormalité est une notion centrale de l’institution. Elle s’identifie d’abord à travers le dommage, qui est une anomalie, une déviation par rapport au cours normal des choses. L’anormalité est ici intrinsèque au dommage et se définit comme le déséquilibre patrimonial et extrapatrimonial subi par la victime. La notion se découvre ensuite à l’extérieur du dommage, elle caractérise ce qu’il faut en plus du dommage pour engager une responsabilité. Cette anormalité, dite extrinsèque au dommage, tient son origine dans la faute civile : est en faute l’individu ayant adopté un comportement anormal.Classiquement cantonnée à l’élément objectif de la faute, avant qu’elle n’en épuise entièrement la définition, l’évolution montre que l’anormalité s’est diversifiée pour devenir un critère aux multiples visages. La notion se rencontre ainsi, par exemple, dans la responsabilité du fait des choses (anormalité de la chose), dans la responsabilité du fait d’autrui (anormalité du fait d’autrui) ou encore en matière de trouble du voisinage. De manière plus latente, l’anormalité peut également être mobilisée pour expliquer le risque sélectionné par le législateur pour faire l’objet d’un régime spécial (ex : accidents de la circulation, fait des produits défectueux). En définitive, l’anormalité est un critère juridique de discrimination qui peut, pour faire naître une obligation de réparation, être associé au fait générateur, au dommage ou au risque. Cette vision est forte de potentialités ; elle permet une présentation renouvelée de la matière autour des trois fondements que sont l’anormalité du fait générateur, l’anormalité du dommage et l’anormalité du risque. En délimitant le périmètre de la responsabilité civile, cette tripartition permet finalement une relecture de la matière à la lumière des trois fondements proposés. / Because it is key in understanding how it is triggered, the concept of abnormality is a notion of great importance in relation to civil liability. This concept is first of all found in relation to the notion of injury, which is an anomaly, a deviation from the normal course of things. The abnormality is an intrinsic part of an injury and is defined as a patrimonial and non-patrimonial disturbance suffered by a victim. The concept is then applied outside of the notion of injury, as it then characterises the elements additional to the injury that are needed in order for liability to arise. This aspect of the abnormality, the extrinsic side, originates from the tort principle: that one is liable for one’s own abnormal behaviour.Although classically confined to the objective element of fault, the notion of abnormality has outgrown its original definition and developed into a criterion with many applications. The concept is used, for instance, in relation to product liability (abnormality of an object/product), vicarious liability, or even in relation to nuisance neighbours. There is perhaps also a latent possibility for the concept of abnormality to be used by the legislator for derivative special liability regimes (e.g. defective products, traffic accidents). Ultimately, the concept of abnormality is a form of legal criterion that, in order to give rise to compensation, can be associated to a triggering event, an injury, or a risk. This vision opens up many possibilities: it enables a new way of presenting this subject matter around the three principles that are the abnormality of the triggering event, the abnormality of the injury and the abnormality of the risk. By defining the perimeter of civil liability, this tripartition actually enables a new understanding of the subject matter through these three proposed principles.

財政援助をコントロールする仕組みは、国によって様々であり、立法的な統制、行政的な統制又は司法的な統制等があるが、本稿では、特に、裁判所による財政支出の統制に焦点を当て、アメリカ合衆国、スペイン及びメキシコ合衆国について検討する。本稿においては、主として、アメリカ合衆国、スペイン及びメキシコ合衆国の裁判所が、私企業に対する財政支出をどのような場合において違憲又は違法とするのか、又はどのような場合において合憲又は適法とするのかということを検討し、これらの国々の裁判所がその結論に到達するために、どのような要件又は判断基準に基づいて、財政支出を統制するのかということについて考察する。 / The mechanisms for controlling fiscal assistance vary from one country to another. Legislative, executive and judicial controls can be mentioned as broad examples of these mechanisms. This research will focus on the judicial control of fiscal expenditure in the United States of America, Spain and Mexico. It primarily examines in which cases financial expenditure on the private sector is declared unconstitutional or illegal and in which situations it is declared constitutional or legal by the American, Spanish and Mexican judiciary. It will also focus on an investigation of the legal requirements for fiscal stimulus, as well as in the judging criteria developed and used by the court of those countries to reach to those conclusions. / 博士(法学) / Doctor of Laws / 同志社大学 / Doshisha University