Malgré une référence expresse faite à la condamnation symbolique par le législateur, cette notion demeure méconnue en droit français. Pouvant être définie comme une décision rendue par une autorité ayant pouvoir de juridiction prononçant, à l'égard d'un individu ou d'un acte, une sanction morale dépourvue d'incidences matérielles réelles exprimant la reconnaissance de la violation d'un droit ou du Droit imputable à cet individu ou à cet acte, la condamnation symbolique est présente de manière diffuse dans le droit français : droit civil, droit administratif et droit pénal. Si les dommages et intérêts symboliques en sont l'illustration la plus évidente, ils n'en sont pas la seule. Annulations dans l'intérêt de la loi, exemptions légale et judiciaire de peine, admonestation … sont aussi des condamnations symboliques. L'étude de l'ensemble de ces illustrations a permis de constater que toutes les condamnations symboliques ne sont pas guidées par la même logique. Quand certaines peuvent être qualifiées de normatives, d'autres sont recognitives ou mitigatives. / Despite a reference do to the symbolic condemnation by the lawmaker, this notion remains unknown in French law. It can be defined as a decision taken by an authority having jurisidiction power pronouncing, towards a person or an act, a moral sanction without material impact expressing the recognition of a right or rule of law's violation accountable to this person or act, the symbolic condemnation is present diffusely in French law : civil law, administrative law and criminal law. If nominal damages are the more obvious illustration, it's not the only. Cancellations in interest of law, absolute discharge, reprimand… are also symbolic condemnation. The study of all of these illustrations has enabled to notice that all the symbolics condemnation are not guided by the same logical. When some can be qualified as normatives, others are recognitives or mitigatives.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:23:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Diogo Melo de Oliveira.pdf: 810207 bytes, checksum: 15a138feddb03a4642b33aa27853ff9d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-09-01 / The purpose of this research is to establish the initial deadline for the redirection of tax lien against shareholders, managers or responsible for the abnormal termination of corporate society administrators. The study is done from the perspective of the realities are constructed within a system by linguistic operation that gives it unity. In the case of law, is the legal rule establishing relations and legal facts, which calls for implementing the act, by which one recognizes the fulfillment of the criteria elected by a general and abstract legal norm. After noting that the tax cannot derive from tort and that the abnormal termination is configured as a violation of the law, is defined the legal basis for liability, defining the criteria established in the rule of law in order to undertake an analysis of the legal fact that gives you cause and the new legal relationship formed. Investigates the impact of the legal rule under a logical perspective, emphasizing the necessity of the act of applying the rule for the construction of legal facts and creation of legal relations. The expects is, in the end, fix the time available to the tax authorities for the establishment of the fact infraction and constitution of the legal relationship derived therefrom, as well as fixing the initial period has expired / A proposta da presente pesquisa é estabelecer o termo inicial do prazo para o redirecionamento da execução fiscal contra os sócios, gerentes ou administradores responsáveis pelo encerramento irregular da sociedade empresarial. O estudo é feito a partir da perspectiva de que as realidades são construídas dentro de um sistema pela operação linguística que lhe confere unidade. No caso do direito, é a norma jurídica que cria as relações e os fatos jurídicos, o que reclama o ato de aplicação, por meio do qual se reconhece o preenchimento dos critérios eleitos por uma norma jurídica geral e abstrata. A partir da constatação de que o tributo não pode derivar de ato ilícito e de que o encerramento irregular se configura como uma infração à lei, é definido o fundamento legal para a responsabilidade, com a delimitação dos critérios estabelecidos na norma jurídica, a fim de proceder a uma análise do fato jurídico que lhe dá causa e da nova relação jurídica formada. Investiga-se a incidência da norma jurídica sob um prisma lógico, ressaltando a necessidade do ato de aplicação da norma para a construção dos fatos jurídicos e criação das relações jurídicas. Pretende-se, ao final, definir o prazo de que dispõe o Fisco para a constituição do fato infracional e criação da relação jurídica dele derivada, bem como fixar o termo inicial do referido prazo

The aim of the present dissertation is to provide the fullest possible legal analysis of the complaint against a violation of law, including its historical and international context, and to endeavour to reflect critically on its current application in practice. In the author's approach, the review of criminal cases on the basis of the files prior to a possible application of this legal remedy is an indispensable object of study. Among other things, the work thoroughly analyzes the applicable grounds for the complaint against a violation of law, its purpose and role in the whole system of extraordinary remedies, and it describes the course as well as the specifics of the Supreme Court proceedings. Standard and optional methods of interpretation are complemented by an empirical examination of the sample of 80 complaints submitted to the Supreme Court, which is aimed at identifying and classifying the alleged flaws and the extent to which there might be an overlap with extraordinary appeal (dovolání). The chosen topic appears to be very timely with regard to the ongoing preparatory legislative work on the new Criminal Procedure Code. The descriptive passages are accompanied by the author's opinions on selected decisions of the Supreme Court and the deficiencies of the current legislation. Taken...

Die wêreld soos dit vandag bestaan, is gebaseer op die Internasionaalregtelike konsep van soewereiniteit. State het die bevoegdheid om hulle eie sake te reël, maar die ontwikkeling van die Internet as ’n netwerk wat globaal verspreid is, het hierdie beginsel verontagsaam. Dit wou voorkom asof die Internet die einde van soewereiniteit en staatskap sou beteken. ’n Geskiedkundige oorsig toon dat reguleerders aanvanklik onseker was oor hoe hierdie nuwe medium hanteer moes word. Dit het geblyk dat nuwe tegnologieë wat fragmentasie van die Internet bewerkstellig, gebruik kon word om staatsgebonde regsreëls af te dwing. Verskeie state van die wêreld het uiteenlopende metodologieë gevolg om die Internet op staatsvlak te probeer reguleer, en dit het tot die lukraak-wyse waarop die Internet tans gereguleer word, aanleiding gegee. Hierdie studie bespreek verskeie aspekte van regsbeheer in die konteks van die Internet, en bepaal daardeur hoe die Internet tans gereguleer word. Toepaslike wetgewing van verskeie state word regdeur die studie bespreek. Vier prominente state, wat verskeie belangrike ingrepe ten aansien van Internetregulering gemaak het, word verder uitgelig. Dit is die Verenigde State van Amerika, die Volksrepubliek van Sjina, die Europese Unie as verteenwoordiger van Europese state, en Suid-Afrika. Aspekte wat op Internasionaalregtelike vlak aangespreek moet word, soos internasionale organisasies en internasionale regsteorieë ten aansien van die regulering van die Internet, word ook onder die loep geneem. Die bevindings wat uit die studie volg, word gebruik om verskeie aanbevelings te maak, en die aanbevelings word uiteindelik in ’n nuwe model saamgevoegom’n sinvoller wyse van regulering van die Internet voor te stel. Aangesien die huidige studie in die konteks van die Internasionale reg onderneem word, word die studie afgesluit met ’n bespreking van kubersoewereiniteit, wat ’n uiteensetting is van hoe soewereiniteit ten aansien van die Internet toegepas behoort te word. Die gevolgtrekking is insiggewend — die ontwikkeling van die Internet het nie die einde van soewereiniteit beteken nie, maar het dit juis bevestig. / The world is currently structured in different states, and this is premised on the International law concept of sovereignty. States have the capacity to structure their own affairs, but the development of the Internet as a globally distributed network has violated this principle. It would seem that the development of the Internet would mean the end of sovereignty and statehood. A historical overview shows that regulators were initially unsure of how this new medium should be dealt with. It appeared that new technologies that could fragment the Internet, could be used to enforce state bound law. Several states of the world have used different methodologies trying to regulate the Internet at state level, and this led to the random way in which the Internet is currently regulated. This study examines various aspects of legal regulation in the context of the Internet, and determines how the Internet is currently regulated. Appropriate legislation of several states are discussed throughout the study. Four prominent states, which made several important interventions regarding the regulation of the Internet, are highlighted further. It is the United States, the People’s Republic of China, the European Union as the representative of European countries, and South Africa. Aspects that need to be addressed on International law level, such as international organizations and international legal theories regarding the regulation of the Internet, are also discussed. The findings that follow from this study are used to make several recommendations, which in turn are used to construct a new model for a more meaningful way in which the Internet could be regulated. Since the present study is undertaken in the context of the International law, the study is concluded with a discussion of cyber sovereignty, which is a discussion of how sovereignty should be applied with regards to the Internet. The conclusion is enlightening—the development of the Internet does not indicate the end of sovereignty, but rather confirms it. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LLD