Le droit administratif coréen se trouve caractérisé depuis peu par une tentative d'adoption du droit du service public. Cette tentative signifie un mouvement pour faire évoluer le droit administratif par le dépasse-ment de ses fondements classiques en provenance du droit allemand, notamment des doctrines fondamentales élaborées à la fin du 19ème siècle. La tentative se manifeste par l'introduction de règles générales pour les activités du service public. Cependant, la mise en œuvre de ces règles novatrices pour le droit coréen ne sera cohérente que lorsque certaines conditions seront satisfaites, notamment des conditions procédurales telle que l'élargissement de la recevabilité du contentieux administratif. Nous avons relevé des éléments dont on doit tenir compte pour le changement du droit administratif coréen par l'adoption du droit du service public français afin que l'adoption soit opérationnelle. Cette démarche est fondée sur l'analyse de l'état actuel du droit coréen concernant l'idée de service public et les juridictions publiques / Korean administrative law is characterized recently by an attempt to adopt the law of public service. This means a movement attempting to change the administrative law by exceeding its classical foundations from German law, including fundamental doctrines developed in the late 19th century. The attempt is mani-fested by the introduction of general rules for public service activities. However, the implementation of these innovative rules for Korean law will be consistent only when certain conditions are met, including procedu-ral requirements such as enlargement of the admissibility of administrative litigation. We identified elements that must be considered for change of Korean administrative law by adoption of the French law of public ser-vice se that it could be operational. This approach is based on the analysis of the current state of Korean law regarding the idea of public service and public jurisdictions

Dès la genèse des universités, à la fin du XIIe siècle, leur autonomie implique un certain rapport au pouvoir puisqu’elles n’existent que si elles sont reconnues et garanties par des autorités extérieures. Les facultés de droit, composantes des universités, sont particulièrement liées au pouvoir politique en raison des rapports étroits unissant le politique et le droit. À partir du XVIIe siècle, en France, le pouvoir royal s’ingère véritablement dans le domaine des facultés de droit. Ce processus d’immixtion du pouvoir politique sur les facultés de droit s’étend jusqu’au point culminant de la réforme napoléonienne instaurant l’Université impériale. Il s’agit d’une phase de transformation des facultés de droit, alliée à la mutation de l’État lui même, située entre les facultés de droit médiévales, détentrices d’une certaine autonomie, jusqu’aux institutions étatisées dont les finalités sont définies par le pouvoir politique. Les facultés de droit d’Italie du nord, pour le moins en Piémont et en Lombardie autrichienne, connaissent la même évolution au travers des réformes du XVIIIe siècle menées respectivement par Victor-Amédée II et Marie-Thérèse d’Autriche. L’influence politique, soulignant les finalités assignées aux facultés de droit, se traduit par un contrôle de la structure mais également par une immixtion dans le contenu même des enseignements. Ainsi, le type de juriste voulu par le pouvoir politique se dessine au travers des différentes réformes adoptées. / From the genesis of the universities in the late twelfth century, autonomy implies a certain relationship to power as they only exist if they are recognized and guaranteed by external autorithies. The Faculties of Laws, universities components, are particularly related to political power because of the close relationship liking the political and law. In France, from the seventeenth century, the royal power truly interferes in the field of law schools. This process of political interference power over law schools extends to the height of the Napoleonic reform establishing the Imperial University. It is a phase transformation of law schools, combined with the transformation of the state itself, between the faculties of medieval law, holders of a degree of autonomy, to the state-owned institutions, whose purpose is defined by the political power. The faculties of law in northern Italy, at least in Piemont and Lombardy Austrian, experience the same evolution through reforms of the eighteenth century led respectively by Victor Amadeus II and Maria Theresa of Austria. The political influence, highlighting the objectives assigned to the faculties of law, resulting in a control structure but also by interference in the same educational content. Thus, the type of lawyer wanted by the political power emerges through various reforms.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:30:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Marcos Antonio Paderes Barbosa.pdf: 784561 bytes, checksum: 2ef39eeca5cffb9ef39a6e86e8bac33e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-05-26 / This study aims to analyze State liability arising from an infringement of the right to reasonable duration of court proceedings. Whereas the theme is recent in Brazilian law and given the lack of works about it, the searchs were subsidied in Spanish law, in French law, in Italian law and European Court of human rights. We discussed the right to "reasonable term" and also that kind of responsibility in the countries mentioned, and in their courts too. In all countries analysed the violation of this right results in State responsibility, with the consequent damages reparation. It was seen also the definition of justice deny. In our law, we have been studying the origins of speedy procedure . The tradition of the courts is to deny State liability due to judicial activity, with arguments like sovereignty, iudicata, independence of judges and fallibility, we refute them all, notably with the most recent courts decisions of the countries of the european continent. In conclusion, we figured out that we can blame the Brazilian State for damage caused by unreasonable duration of the process / O presente estudo tem por objetivo analisar a responsabilidade do Estado resultante da violação ao direito a razoável duração do processo judicial. Considerando que o tema é recente no direito brasileiro e dado a falta de obras especializadas, buscamos subsídios no direito espanhol, no direito francês, no direito italiano e na Corte europeia dos direitos do homem. Analisamos o direito ao prazo razoável e também a responsabilidade nos países citados e na, respectiva, Corte. Em todos os países analisados a violação a esse direito enseja na responsabilidade do Estado, com a consequente reparação dos danos. Verificamos também a definição de denegação de justiça. Em nosso direito, estudamos as origens da celeridade processual até os dias atuais. A tradição dos Tribunais é negar a responsabilidade do Estado decorrente da atividade jurisdicional, com argumentos na soberania, coisa julgada, independência dos juízes e falibilidade humana, rebatemos todos, notadamente com as decisões mais recentes das Cortes dos países do continente europeu. Desta forma, concluímos que é possível responsabilizar o Estado brasileiro pelos danos provocados pela irrazoável duração do processo

Le développement de la finance islamique a attiré l’attention non seulement des banquiers et des juristes, mais également des pouvoirs publics français depuis quelques années. Cette finance, qui obéit à la loi islamique, fonctionne non pas sur la stipulation de l’intérêt, mais sur deux autres modes de rémunération des bailleurs de fonds : elle applique, d’une part, le principe du partage des profits et des pertes en fondant les transactions sur les contrats de société, et d’autre part, sur une marge bénéficiaire lorsque l’opération s’adosse à un contrat de vente et de location.Parmi les produits bancaires islamiques, les crédits islamiques sont les plus caractéristiques qui écartent la stipulation du ribâ (intérêt). La fixation de leur régime juridique français est tributaire de deux corpus juridiques, a priori, opposés. Bien qu’ils n’aient ni des fondements juridiques, ni des régimes juridiques clairs et précis en droit français, ce dernier arrive à les encadrer. Cet encadrement présente non seulement des points de convergence, mais également des points de divergence avec le droit musulman. La flexibilité de ces systèmes juridiques nous a conduit à définir tant un cadre juridique général pour définir les régimes français de la rémunération du dispensateur de crédit islamique, qu’un cadre juridique spécial pour régir la structuration des opérations adossées à des contrats de vente (comme la mourabaha, le tawarruq, le salam et l’istisna), de location (l’ijara et l’ijara muntahia biltamlik) et de société (comme la moudaraba, la mousharaka et la mousharaka dégressive). / The development of the Islamic finance drew the attention of the French public authorities, bankers and lawyers since a few years. This finance, which rules by the Islamic law, does not apply the interest, but two other methods of payment of the financiers: on the one hand, the principle of the profit and loss sharing, by backing the transactions on partnership contracts, and on the other hand, on profit margin when the operation backs on a sale and lease contracts.Among the Islamic banking products, the Islamic credits are the most characteristic. The French legal framework of those transactions depends, in fact, on two legal systems which are apparently in contradiction. Although they have neither legal sources, nor clear and precise legal regulation in French law, the latter could rule them. This framework presents not only some points of convergence, but also points of difference with the Islamic Law. Nevertheless, the flexibility of both Laws led us to define a general legal framework of the remuneration of the Islamic credit provider, and a special legal framework to rule the structuration of the operations backed to partnership (moudaraba, mousharaka et degressive mousharaka), sale (mourabaha, le tawarruq, le salam et l’istisna), and lease contract (ijara et ijara muntahia biltamlik).

Développées par la Cour de Justice, les invocabilités des directives européennes définissent les conditions permettant aux personnes juridiques de se prévaloir d'une directive dans leurs rapports juridiques. La Cour de Justice a réussi à introduire ces invocabilités dans les ordres juridiques nationaux, notamment en Italie et en France, en s'appuyant, d'une part, sur des éléments déjà existants dans les ordres juridiques des États membres, tels que la technique de l'interprétation conforme et le principe de la responsabilité de la puissance publique, en les faisant évoluer dans le sens européen. D'autre part, la Cour a aussi créé des outils nouveaux et, finalement, révolutionnaires, tels que les invocabilités de substitution et d'exclusion de la norme nationale incompatible avec une directive européenne. La mise en oeuvre de ces invocabilités a eu des répercussions importantes sur le rôle des juridictions nationales, qui ont vu l'ensemble de leurs missions s'étendre. La sphère juridique des particuliers a également été influencée, de façon imprévisible et, parfois, préjudiciable. / Developed by the European Court of Justice, the invocability of EU directives defines the conditions allowing legal subjects to exercise the rights conferred by a directive in their legal relationships. The ECJ has managed to introduce different types of invocability into the member States national legal orders, and notably in Italy and France, by, on the one hand using some pre-existing elements of the national legal orders, such as consistent interpretation and the principle of State liability, and making them evolve in a European way. And, on the other hand the ECJ has also created new and, finally, revolutionary tools, such as invocability of substitution and invocability of exclusion of the national law incompatible with a EU directive. The implementation of these different types of invocability has had a deep impact on the role of national courts, who have seen their mandate extended. The legal sphere of legal subjects had also been influenced, in unpredictable and sometimes detrimental ways.

L'étude de l'apport en société des créations intellectuelles permet de dynamiser le schéma contractuel classique de la propriété intellectuelle reposant sur le couple cession-licence et contribue à l'analyse du mécanisme de l'apport en société. Malgré une similitude certaine avec les contrats usuels d'exploitation des biens intellectuels, l'apport des créations intellectuelles en société est une convention originale. Cette originalité se traduit par une nature et un régime hybrides. Du point de vue du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, il s'agit d'un contrat particulier d'exploitation des biens intellectuels. Du point de vue du droit de sociétés, il s'agit du contrat qui permet de mettre les biens intellectuels à la disposition de la société et de l'un des éléments constitutifs de celle-ci. Cette dualité a une incidence directe tant sur les conditions de réalisation de l'apport en société des créations intellectuelles que sur les effets de l'apport. Si le régime applicable s'appuie sur celui des contrats classiques d'exploitation des biens intellectuels, à savoir sur les règles prévues par le droit civil pour le contrat de vente et de louage des choses, il n'y a pourtant pas assimilation. D'une part, la réalisation de la convention d'apport obéit à de nombreuses contraintes dont celles résultant du droit des sociétés et du droit de la concurrence. D'autre part, l'appréhension des droits et des obligations des parties est différente. La relation entre la société et l'apporteur est imprégnée de l'intuitu personae inhérente aux biens intellectuels et de l'affectio societatis dû à la nature du contrat de société. En l'absence d'une règlementation adaptée à la spécificité du contrat, la liberté contractuelle s'exerce dans le respect des principes d'ordre public. / The study of the contribution agreement dynamizes the classic contractual scheme of intellectual property exploitation based on the pair licence- assignment and provides a detailed analysis of the mechanism of the contribution to a company. Despite a certain similarity to conventional intellectual property exploitation contracts, the contribution agreement is an original contract. This originality is reflected legally by a hybrid nature as well as a heterogeneous applicable system. Regarding intellectual property, the contribution agreement is a specific act of exploitation of intellectual goods. Regarding company law, it is the agreement which enables delivery of the intellectual goods to the company and constitutes an essential element of the company¿s constitution. This duality directly affects the conditions of contract formation as well as its effects. Although the applicable system is based on the traditional contracts of exploitation of intellectual goods, in particular the articles of civil law relating the sale and lease of tangible assets, there is no further similarity. On the one hand, the formation of the contribution agreement follows numerous constraints posed by company law and competition law. On the other hand, the understanding of the parties¿ rights and obligations differs. The relationship between the company and the contributor is imbued with the intuitu personae attached to intellectual goods as well as the affectio societatis resulting from the nature of the partnership agreement. Given the lack of regulation adapted to the specificity of intellectual property contribution agreements, the emphasis has been put on contract drafting. Such a legal deficiency must be supplemented by contractual freedom without breaking the principles of public policy.

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.