[pt] O objetivo desta dissertação é desenvolver um modelo de autoavaliação da gestão de riscos em instituições gestoras de recursos de terceiros, segundo uma abordagem multicritério de apoio à decisão e tendo como base as diretrizes da Norma ABNT NBR ISO 31000:2018. Busca-se demonstrar a aplicabilidade do modelo mediante o desenvolvimento de um estudo empírico em uma instituição gestora de recursos de terceiros e administração dos fundos de investimento. A metodologia compreende: (i) revisão da literatura e análise documental sobre os temas centrais da pesquisa; (ii) definição de estruturas analíticas em rede, segundo as cláusulas e itens da referida Norma; (iii) emprego do método Analytic Network Process (ANP) para atribuição de pesos aos itens da Norma referentes à estrutura e ao processo de gestão de riscos, mediante reuniões consensuais com especialistas com formação e experiência em gestão de riscos; (iv) elaboração e aplicação do instrumento de autoavaliação junto à instituição gestora de recursos de terceiros e administração dos fundos de investimento para avaliar seu nível de maturidade em relação às cláusulas e aos itens da Norma, com uso da lógica fuzzy; (vi) emprego do método Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) para identificar os itens que devem ser priorizados, visando à melhoria da gestão de riscos da instituição. Destaca-se como resultado principal uma sistemática inovadora de autoavaliação de instituições gestoras de recursos de terceiros que buscam a excelência em gestão de riscos, na perspectiva de apoiar processos decisórios referentes à melhoria contínua de seus sistemas e processos de gestão de riscos. O estudo empírico no contexto organizacional da instituição gestora de recursos de terceiros demonstrou ser plausível determinar o nível de maturidade desta instituição em relação às cláusulas da Norma ABNT NBR ISO 31000:2018 e mapear os principais desafios a serem gerenciados pela instituição, tendo em vista a realização de valor pela gestão de riscos bem sucedida. / [en] This dissertation aims to develop a risk management self-assessment model in third-party asset management institutions, according to a multi-criteria decision support approach and based on the guidelines of the ABNT NBR ISO 31000:2018 Standard. It seeks to demonstrate the model s applicability by developing an empirical study in an institution specialist in third-party resources management and investment fund administration. The methodology comprises: (i) literature review and documental analysis on the central themes of the research; (ii) definition of two analytical network structures, based on the clauses and items of referred Standard; (iii) use of the Analytic Network Process (ANP) method to assign weights to the items concerning the structure and the process of risk management, through consensual meetings involving specialists with experience in risk management; (iv) elaboration and application of the self-assessment instrument in the institution that manages third-party resources and administrates investment funds to assess their level of maturity in relation to the clauses and items of the ABNT NBR ISO 31000:2018 Standard, using fuzzy logic; (vi) application of the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) method to identify the items that should be prioritized, with a view to improving the institution s risk management. The main result is an innovative self-assessment system of institutions managing third-party resources that seek excellence in risk management to support decisions related to the continuous improvement of their risk management systems and processes. The empirical study in the organizational context of an institution specialist in third-party resources management demonstrated that it is plausible to determine the maturity level of this institution concerning the clauses and items of the ABNT NBR ISO 31000:2018 standard and to map the main challenges faced by this institution to realize value by the successful risk management.

Reverse logistics is an important process that is often misunderstood. Reverse logistics can cause considerable cost, but provide numerous opportunities. Many organisations do not understand the correct processes and procedures to follow and how to manage reverse logistics efficiently. The focus of this study was on best practices in reverse logistics. A best practice framework was developed to help organisations overcome problems and manage their reverse logistics more efficiently. This study adopted a mixed method research approach with both qualitative and quantitative elements. A comprehensive literature study was conducted to develop a conceptual best practice framework in reverse logistics and a survey was conducted to seek inputs from industry in South Africa to refine the framework into a workable instrument in practice. The study concluded that the best practices identified in literature have proven to be important in practice, and applying such practices will enable organisations to manage their reverse logistics more efficiently. / Business Management / M. Com. (Logistics)

Vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs) are a subclass of mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) in which the mobile nodes are vehicles; these vehicles are autonomous systems connected by wireless communication on a peer-to-peer basis. They are self-organized, self-configured and self-controlled infrastructure-less networks. This kind of network has the advantage of being able to be set-up and deployed anywhere and anytime because it has no infrastructure set-up and no central administration. Distributing information between these vehicles over long ranges in such networks, however, is a very challenging task, since sharing information always has a risk attached to it especially when the information is confidential. The disclosure of such information to anyone else other than the intended parties could be extremely damaging, particularly in military applications where controlling the dissemination of messages is essential. This thesis therefore provides a review of the issue of security in VANET and MANET; it also surveys existing solutions for dissemination control. It highlights a particular area not adequately addressed until now: controlling information flow in VANETs. This thesis contributes a policy-based framework to control the dissemination of messages communicated between nodes in order to ensure that message remains confidential not only during transmission, but also after it has been communicated to another peer, and to keep the message contents private to an originator-defined subset of nodes in the VANET. This thesis presents a novel framework to control data dissemination in vehicle ad hoc networks in which policies are attached to messages as they are sent between peers. This is done by automatically attaching policies along with messages to specify how the information can be used by the receiver, so as to prevent disclosure of the messages other than consistent with the requirements of the originator. These requirements are represented as a set of policy rules that explicitly instructs recipients how the information contained in messages can be disseminated to other nodes in order to avoid unintended disclosure. This thesis describes the data dissemination policy language used in this work; and further describes the policy rules in order to be a suitable and understandable language for the framework to ensure the confidentiality requirement of the originator. This thesis also contributes a policy conflict resolution that allows the originator to be asked for up-to-date policies and preferences. The framework was evaluated using the Network Simulator (NS-2) to provide and check whether the privacy and confidentiality of the originators’ messages were met. A policy-based agent protocol and a new packet structure were implemented in this work to manage and enforce the policies attached to packets at every node in the VANET. Some case studies are presented in this thesis to show how data dissemination can be controlled based on the policy of the originator. The results of these case studies show the feasibility of our research to control the data dissemination between nodes in VANETs. NS-2 is also used to test the performance of the proposed policy-based agent protocol and demonstrate its effectiveness using various network performance metrics (average delay and overhead).

從過去的公元2000年所強調網路Dot Com時代來臨，資訊商務發展一路從電子錢包、電子商務、B2B、B2C、第三方支付、C2C、O2O..到近期的「行動支付」發展的角度上來看，因為網路的發達，無線網路覆蓋面積的增大，網路速度也不斷的提升，智慧型手機及行動裝置使用廣泛，讓整體消費市場由過去所重視的企業消費市場已大幅轉向重視個人的消費市場。 短短的這二、三年，因智慧型手機使用的普及，各種APP應用程式蓬勃發展，已徹底改變了人們的生活習慣，當人們想要獲取與傳遞資訊時，只要動動手指頭，馬上就可達成；相對的，人們對於智慧型手機行動裝置也越來越依賴。面對這一新的「動動手指頭的時代」發展與趨勢，加上個人消費者的使用與消費習慣改變，造就了消費市場巨幅的變化；企業更為爭取個人消費者的市場，作為企業競爭力之指標。從企業為爭取個人消費者的市場之發展趨勢來看，O2O （Online to Offline）更成為現代重要的營銷模式。 本研究的貢獻希望在於以便利商店繳交信用卡帳款為例得到之啟發，打造一個行動商務平台，藉由現代圖碼（Picture Code），即利用目前所常見使用的條碼，如：堆疊式二維條碼以及矩陣式二維條碼，結合現行還在開發之新技術，組合出更新，圖形更複雜且資料儲存量更大之圖碼當作介質，透過網路之連結，以現代資訊商務發展活動的應用模式為基礎，套用本研究之應用模型，作為對於個人使用者的身分驗證，以及個人消費者於現代資訊商務發展活動之「電子錢包」及「電子商務」、「第三方支付」乃至「C2C」在使用信用卡的應用上，透過使用智慧型手機或行動裝置，作為現代另一新的「行動支付」方法。同時，在完成商務交易活動後，又能結合O2O營銷模式，為使用或消費者個人帶來共多利益，也為商家創造出更多商機。 / From "Dot Com" network generation coming in 2000, the IT Business Development Activities from "Electronic Wallet", "e-commerce", "B2B", "B2C", "Third-party payment," "C2C", "O2O" to the recent "Mobile Payment" development, because the network developed, wireless network coverage area increases, network speed has also been improved, smart phones and mobile devices are popular, overall business market is focus on the individual consumer market now. In this three years, smart phones use a variety of APP applications, it really has completely changed people's habits. When people want to capture and transmit some information, it just need to “move your fingers” as soon as you can reach. Also, people become increasingly dependent on smart phones and mobile devices. Face with this new "move your fingers time” developments trends and consumers’ consumption habits change, enterprise all want to increase the individual consumers’ market share and also as a business Indicators competitiveness. O2O （Online to Offline, Offline to Online） business model is more and more important to enterprise in the future. This thesis investigates from a case study on credit card payment for bill in the convenience store to get an idea. Hope build up a mobile commerce platform and use the modern “Picture Code” that the current use of bar codes, such as Stacked 2D bar codes and two-dimensional matrix bar code and combined with the existing new technology still in development. The combination of updates, graphics and more complex and larger data storage capacity of the bar code to be the new “interface”. Based on all application connect within Internet, we try to implement for all application according to development and innovation from this paper that to be a customer’s ID verification and “mobile payment” new model. Meanwhile, after transaction successfully, integrate the O2O business model to create more benefit for customer and more business opportunity for enterprise.

大法官在釋字第689號解釋中，首次在解釋文中引進美國法上的「合理隱私期待」概念，以作為人民是否受到憲法隱私權保障的判定標準。事實上，「合理隱私期待」的概念在我國法上並不令人感到陌生。例如，通訊保障及監察法第3條第2項即明確規定：「前項所稱之通訊，以有事實足認受監察人對其通訊內容有『隱私或秘密之合理期待』者為限」。 除了尾隨、全天候視覺監控等類似的古老方法，隨著科技的進步，諸如以衛星為基礎的汽車導航系統、以基地台為基礎的行動電話定位服務等低成本、高效率的定位科技，可以更輕易且嚴重地侵害我們的私生活及隱私。當定位科技成為我們每天生活的一部分時，如何在這樣的脈絡下正確地操作「合理隱私期待」概念，已成為一項重要的議題。 惟國內學術文獻對於如何正確地操作「合理隱私期待」，似乎欠缺全面性地研究。為了填補國內的空白，本文進行了美國及台灣案例法之深入比較分析，尤其是關於合理隱私期待及定位裝置的判決。本文指出了以往我國及美國法院判決的問題，以及邏輯矛盾之處。為了達到更加一致、正確的判決結果，本文認為，在操作合理隱私期望概念時，法院應著重於四個因素，其分別是：「資訊的性質」、「侵害的手段」、「侵害的場所」及「第三人原則」。 / In J.Y. Interpretation No. 689, the Constitutional Court , for the first time, employs the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy”, originated from the United States, in order to determine whether an individual enjoys a constitutionally protected right to privacy. The concept, however, is not new to our legal system. For example, Paragraph 2, Article 3 of the Communication Protection and Surveillance Act provides: “The communications referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be limited to those for which there is an adequate showing of facts that a person subject to surveillance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy or confidentiality with respect to the content of the communications.” In addition to tailing, around the clock visual surveillance and similar old-fashioned methods, with the advance in technology, our private life and privacy could be more easily and greatly intruded by low-cost, high-efficiency location positioning technology, such as satellite-based car navigation system and cell sites-based cellphone positioning service. When location positioning technology becomes part of our everyday life, how to properly apply the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in this context has also become an important issue. So far, there seems to lack a comprehensive study on the aforementioned issue in domestic academic literature. To fill the gap, this thesis conducts an in-depth comparative analysis of both U.S. and Taiwan case law, especially those involving reasonable expectation of privacy and location positioning devices. This thesis points out the problems and logical inconsistencies in past decisions in both jurisdictions. In order to reach a more consistent and appropriate result, this thesis argues that when applying the reasonable expectation of privacy test, courts should focus on four factors which are: “nature of information,” “measure of infringement,” “the place where the intrusion happens,” and “third party doctrine.”

懲罰性賠償金係透過課予加害人超出被害人損害之賠償，達成制裁加害人，並嚇阻加害人以及其他行為人從事相類行為。該制度係源自於英國，並自英國傳遞自美國，並於美國廣泛盛行。懲罰性賠償金制度具有懲罰、嚇阻、設立典範之功能、執行法律等功能，惟其係私法下之概念，卻帶有懲罰目的之公法性質，跨越兩種領域使其極具爭議性。 消費者保護法第51條將英美法之懲罰性賠償金制度引進，致使我國民刑分立之法體系產生模糊地帶。關於我國實務對於懲罰性賠償金之態度，得以自其就消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋觀察。然實務就要件之解釋未盡統一，如此將導致當事人無所適從。 2015年6月17日修正之消費者保護法第51條，明確將「重大過失」納入規定，顯見立法者對於企業經營者採取更為嚴格之態度。如此修正固解決長久以來「過失」是否應限縮於「重大過失」之爭議，惟關於消費者保護法第51條其他要件之解釋，仍有尚未解決之問題。 觀諸消費者保護法第51條之要件，「依本法所提之訴訟」於「本法」及「訴訟」即存在寬嚴不同之解釋。另關於該條文之責任主體，企業經營者是否就其受僱人之懲罰性賠償金責任負責，又企業經營者間之責任關係為何，皆有釐清之必要。請求權主體之部分，消費者保護法第7條規定之「第三人」並未出現於第51條懲罰性賠償金之規定中，產生消費者以外之「第三人」是否為請求權主體之爭議。另外，被害人死亡時懲罰性賠償金之歸屬，亦為立法者制定該條文規定時，未審慎思考致生之法律漏洞。究竟被害人死亡時，應由間接被害人抑或繼承人請求懲罰性賠償金，無論如何結論之擇採，皆有賴縝密之法律邏輯推演。最後於懲罰性賠償金之計算，2015年6月17日明確懲罰輕過失行為以及提高倍數上限之修正，其妥適性為何；又消費者保護法第51條規定之計算基礎「損害額」之意義、計算時酌定之因素、與有過失之考量等，皆有待解決。本文以整理消費者保護法第51條懲罰性賠償金適用上之爭議，並嘗試透過學說及實務見解之分析歸納出合理之結論，並就結論之推演，參考部分日本法學說，期能對於消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋提供另一種思考方向。 / Punitive damages are extra monetary burdens which make the offender to pay more than those the injured has lost, in order to deter the offender and other offenders from behaving the same. The doctrine of punitive damages is originated from England and swept America. Punitive damages have the functions of punishment, deterrence, setting examples to the society, law enforcement and so on. However, it is controversial that the doctrine of punitive damages is the concept under civil law, but with the function of punishment, which makes the doctrine in the borderland between public and private law. Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act is the doctrine of punitive damages in Taiwan, which causes a gray area among the separation of civil law and criminal law, and makes Art. 51 controversial. It is not difficult to know the attitude of the judges toward punitive damages by understanding the explanation of Art. 51. But there is no consistency in the explanation of each element of Art. 51, which makes the Article bewildering. On June 17, 2015, gross negligence has been added to the amended Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, which shows the strict attitude of the legislators toward the business operators. This amendment solves the problem that whether negligence should be limited to gross negligence or not, but there still are other issues about Art. 51 Which should be solved. Among Art. 51, “this law” and “litigation” in the element of “in a litigation brought in accordance with this law” are explained in both strict and easing ways. About the subject of the legal responsibility of Art. 51, whether the business operators should be responsible for the act of their employees, and whether business operators should be jointly and severally liable for punitive damages are issues should be discussed. About the claimers of Art. 51, comparing Art. 7 to Art. 51, we can find that “third party” isn’t showed in Art. 51, which brings up to the issue that whether third party other than consumer can claim for punitive damages. Also, who can claim for punitive damages when the victim dies is an important issue. The legislators did not think of this kind of situation, which caused legislation imperfection among Art. 51. Whether the indirect victim or the successor should be the claimer of punitive damages in this kind of situation should be explained carefully and logically. Last but not least, in related to the calculation of punitive damages, the amendment of Art. 51 in June, 17, 2015 specifies that objective negligence and subjective negligence should be punished and the maximum limit on the amount of damages has been raised. Whether the amendment is proper or not, and whether “the amount of damages” should be confined to “property damages” should be clarified. It is also necessary to figure out the considerations of determination of the amount. Whether comparative negligence should be considered while deciding the amount of punitive damages is also controversial, which should be investigated prudently. This thesis will focus on Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act and the issues about it. This thesis will analyze those issues according to the theories and opinions of practice in Taiwan. American theories and Japanese theories will also be discussed in this thesis in order to solve the problems, and to provide a different view of Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Cette étude présente une caractérisation du mécanisme procédural de l'intervention des tiers en droit judiciaire privé québécois. Développée en trois volets, elle aborde successivement l'origine historique de l'intervention des tiers, qui révèle sa pérennité et sa longévité (première partie). Un modèle conceptuel de sa forme contemporaine selon lequel son bien-fondé repose sur sa légitimité et son utilité est proposé (deuxième partie). Enfin, une étude critique, dans une perspective sociologique et comparative, de la place de l'intervention des tiers dans les projets de réforme de la procédure civile, expose son incompatibilité avec les modes alternatifs de résolution des conflits et trouve, dans le pouvoir judiciaire de l'ordonner d'office présent la législation étrangère, une assurance contre l'iniquité à laquelle le droit québécois devrait souscrire (troisième partie). / This study is a characterization of the procedural mechanism allowing intervention or joinder of third parties in Quebec's civil procedure law. Consisting of three parts, it traces the history of this procedure, revealing its perennial longevity (Part one). A theory of its contemporary function is proposed, according to which its legal validity rests on its legitimacy and usefulness (Part two). Finally, the place of third party intervention in civil procedure law reform is analysed from a sociological and comparative standpoint, exposing its fundamental incompatibility with ADR (Alternative dispute resolution) and finding that the judicial power–in foreign law–to order intervention as of right is a safegard against unfairness worth incorporating into Quebec's procedural law (Part three).

L’arbitrage public international est demeuré un domaine exclusif aux États souverains jusqu’à la fin des années 50, alors que sont apparus les traités bilatéraux relatifs aux investissements (TBI). La principale caractéristique de ces TBI est sans conteste le recours direct de l’investisseur étranger en arbitrage international contre des États récalcitrants, une alternative aux tribunaux locaux souvent inefficaces. Plus récemment, en 1998, l’organe d’appel de l’OMC est allé jusqu’à accepter l’opinion d’amicus curiae dans un différend opposant des États et aujourd’hui, l’admission de ce type d’opinion est expressément prévue dans plusieurs TBI de nouvelle génération. Mais si l’investisseur bénéficie d’un recours devant une instance arbitrale neutre, il en va tout autrement pour la population locale qui se trouve souvent lésée par la présence, sur son territoire, d’investisseurs étrangers. Le droit de présenter une opinion ne peut remplacer le droit de faire valoir une réclamation. Se pose donc la question : est-ce que, dans le contexte actuel du droit de l’investissement international, des tiers (par rapport aux parties signataires de TBI et par rapport aux parties au différend) peuvent prétendre à une voie de recours direct en arbitrage international? Nous sommes d’avis qu’une telle voie de recours est actuellement possible et que le contexte de l’arbitrage relatif à l’investissement constitue un terrain fertile pour la mise en place de ce droit, étant donné la place déjà faite aux investisseurs. Nous verrons que les principales objections à l’admission de tiers à l’arbitrage international peuvent être rejetées. L’objection de l’absence du consentement des parties intéressées tombe quand on constate les nombreux cas d’arbitrage international où la portée du consentement a été étendue pour inclure des non-parties ou encore pour soumettre à l’arbitrage des matières non envisagées au départ. Par ailleurs, l’absence de qualité pour agir en droit international est un problème théorique, car les investisseurs y ont déjà accès malgré l’absence de cette qualité. Reste donc à déterminer quelle pourrait être la base d’un recours en droit substantiel international pour qu’un tiers puisse faire valoir une réclamation. Nous verrons qu’il existe des instruments juridiques et des principes internationaux dont la contravention pourrait très bien engager la responsabilité de l’État ou de l’investisseur fautif, tout comme il est possible de bien circonscrire les critères d’admissibilité des tiers à la procédure d’arbitrage international. / International arbitration has remained an exclusive domain sovereign states until, in the late 50s, came the first bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The main feature of these BITs is undoubtedly the right, granted to investors, to direct international arbitration against recalcitrant States, an alternative to often ineffective local justice. More recently, in 1998, the appellate body of the WTO went to accept the opinion of an independent amicus curiae in a dispute between State members. Today, the admission of such opinions is clearly provided for in several recent BITs. But if investors benefit from a right of action before a neutral international arbitration body, the situation is quite different for the local population, who is often affected by the presence of foreign investors on its territory. The right to submit an opinion cannot replace the right to legal action. This therefore raises one question: in the current context of international investment law, is it possible for third parties (non signatories of BITs and not parties to the dispute) are entitled to a remedy direct international arbitration? We are of the opinion that the answer to this question is: yes. And the context of investment arbitration, because of the right to direct arbitration against States already granted to investors, constitutes a fertile ground for the implementation of this right of action in favour of third parties. The objection based on the absence of the parties’ consent to such right of action has been set aside in many international arbitration cases where the scope of consent has been extended to include non-parties or to submit to arbitration matters not contemplated at first. Also, the objection based on the absence of legal standing of third parties in International Law proves to be theoretical as foreign investors already have access to international justice despite the lack of this quality. There remains to determine what substantial International Law will constitute a valid legal basis for a third party claim. We will see that there exists legal instruments and international principles and that their violation by States or investors may result in the obligation to compensate the prejudice suffered, as well as it is possible to clearly define and indentify who the third parties could be.

La notion d’opposabilité, dégagée par la doctrine française au début du siècle dernier, revêt aujourd’hui une importance cruciale relativement à la sécurité juridique. Ainsi, il est communément admis par la doctrine moderne qu’un tel concept explique les effets non obligatoires des contrats à l’égard du tiers, et notamment en matière de responsabilité. D’une part, le tiers est tenu d’un devoir d’abstention concernant tout acte qui pourrait porter atteinte aux contrats d’autrui. Le cas échéant, les contractants peuvent demander la réparation du dommage qu’ils subissent du fait de la convention conclue par le tiers au mépris de leurs droits. D’autre part, et parallèlement, le tiers victime est en droit d’engager la responsabilité délictuelle du cocontractant auteur de l’inexécution contractuelle lui ayant été préjudiciable. Pour autant, le nombre d’auteurs pour qui l’opposabilité ne peut pas réellement servir d’appui aux deux règles précitées ne cesse de s’accroître. La critique n’est pas cependant pleinement justifiée. En effet, l’étude approfondie de la signification exacte, du fondement et des caractéristiques déterminantes de l’opposabilité démontre que, moyennant une juste délimitation de son champ d’application, cette notion demeure utile, pour ne pas dire indispensable à la protection des contractants et des tiers. / The notion of opposability, which appeared in French doctrine at the beginning of the last century, is of crucial importance today in relation to legal certainty. Thus, it is generally accepted in contemporary doctrine that such a concept explains the non-obligatory effects of contracts towards third parties and particularly in regard to responsibility. On the one hand, third parties must abstain from any act which may harm others' contracts. If this should occur, parties to the contract could claim compensation for any damage suffered as the result of a convention under taken by a third party without regard to their rights. On the other hand, and in parallel, a third-party victim is entitled to make a tort claim against a cocontracting party failed to fulfill a contractual obligation when this would be prejudicial tohim. Having said that, there is an ever-increasing number of authors for whom opposability cannot be used to support the two preceding rules. However, this criticism is notcompletely justified. Indeed, an in-depth study of the exact meaning, of the basis and of the determining characteristics of opposability show that, given a fair definition of the boundaries, this notion remains useful, if not indispensable to protect parties to a contract and third parties.

A l’heure où le droit du dommage corporel tente de se démarquer de pars les règles qui lui sont propres, la réparation intégrale des dommages corporels ne semble être véritablement obtenue par la victime que dans le cadre de la responsabilité civile. Le préjudice professionnel a gagné en autonomie depuis l’élaboration de la nomenclature Dintilhac distinguant les pertes de gains professionnels du déficit fonctionnel et conceptualisant un nouveau poste de préjudice professionnel « l’incidence professionnelle ». La réparation intégrale « tout le préjudice ; rien que le préjudice ; le préjudice réel » en devient l’expression. Cependant ce principe est souvent malmené et inéluctablement des inégalités de traitement entre les victimes en découlent. En effet, l’influence excessive du recours des tiers payeurs, sur l’évaluation du préjudice professionnel et l’absence d’outils indispensables à la pérennité de la matière laissent perplexes / At a time when the law of personal injury tries to stand out from the rules that are specific to it, full compensation for bodily injury seems to be truly obtained by the victim only in the context of civil liability. Professional prejudice has become more autonomous since the development of the Dintilhac classification distinguishing professional earnings losses from the functional deficit and conceptualizing a new professional harm position « professional incidence ». Comprehensive reparation « all prejudice; nothing but prejudice; the real harm » becomes its expression. However, this principle is often abused and inevitably inequalities of treatment between victims result. Indeed, the excessive influence of third-party payers' recourse on the assessment of professional harm and the absence of tools essential to the sustainability of the matter are puzzling