Le contentieux prud'homal est le point d'entrée le plus significatif pour observer la réception judiciaire de la preuve électronique. Le pragmatisme et la lexibilité de la juridiction prud'homale offre un terrain d'étude propice à la confrontation axiologique des TIC et du droit du travail et à l'étude pratique des conséquences de l'insertion d'une telle preuve dans l'argumentation des plaideurs. La présente étude s’attache à démontrer qu’à l’invocation d’une preuve électronique, lejuge du contrat de travail offre une réponse mitigée. Il adopte en effet, un comportement paradoxal : d’un côté ; il fait preuve d’audace et prend part à la reconnaissance de la preuve électronique lors de la phase d’administration de la preuve, d’un autre côté, il adopte une position de défiance et la rendinopérante. Le bilan de la recherche est proche de la désillusion : le crédit alloué à la preuve électronique n’est pas à la hauteur de son utilité processuelle, elle mérite une approche plus ambitieuse et doit faire l’objet d’une réflexion générale et approfondie. / Procedure in labour contentious matters is the most significant place to observe the judicial reception of e-proof. Pragmatism and flexibility of the elected industrial tribunal offers a field of study which is suitable to observe the axiological confrontation between ICT and labour law and to observe the practicalconsequences of the inclusion of such proof in the litigants’ argumentation. This research endeavours to demonstrate that the use of e-proof receives a mixed appreciation from the Judge of the contract of employment. Indeed, he adopts a paradoxical behaviour: on the one hand, he shows boldness and takes part in the recognition of the e-proof during the phase of producing evidence; but on the other hand, he seems to be reluctant to make use of it in an effective manner. The result of this study is disappointing when considering the credibility given to e-proof is not equal to its procedural utility; it deserves to be the subjectof a more ambitious approach and of a general and more in-depth reflexion.

<p>Kenya&rsquo / s December 2007 Presidential elections sparked a wave of violent clashes over allegations of election rigging. The protests broke out along ethnic lines, causing greater civil unrest. There have been allegations that during these outbreaks of violence crimes against humanity were committed. This violence attracted world-wide concern and was universally condemned. Kenya is loathe to prosecute the perpetrators or those who bear the highest responsibility for the alleged commission of crimes against humanity. It has instead established a national investigatory mechanism, the Kenyan Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (hereafter TJRC). This approach adopted by Kenya has been criticized for the fact that it fosters a culture of impunity. However, the Prosecutor of International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) has used his proprio motu powers to initiate an investigation of alleged commission of crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. This research paper has analysed the reasons for the proprio motu intervention of the ICC in Kenyan situation. It also examined whether Kenya was unwilling or genuinely unable to prosecute the perpetrators of the post-election violence of 2007. Furthermore, the paper&nbsp / evaluated the provisions of the Kenyan TJRC, the major shortcomings of the Commission and the challenges it is facing in fulfilling its mandate. In conclusion the paper analysed the relationship between TJRC and ICC and re-evaluate any role that the two bodies could play in dispensing justice in Kenya. But before that, the paper laid down the factual&nbsp / background that led to the proprio motu interevention of the ICC in Kenya where a truth commission had alreday been established.<br /> <br /> &nbsp / </p>

Scientific evidence is increasingly relied on in litigation. Discussions and debates aimed at enabling courts to make the best use scientific evidence are therefore critical. This thesis adds the perspective of procedural legitimacy to the science and law dialogue. Procedural Legitimacy is the concept that consistent adherence to legal procedure maintains the overall legitimacy of the legal system, and the validity of its outcomes. I argue that to maintain legitimate legal outcomes, procedural rules must be applied consistently and vigilantly to scientific evidence. This means that admissibility rules must be applied properly to scientific evidence, and that admitted scientific evidence must be duly scrutinized and weighed against the legal standard of proof. This ensures that the legal outcome will be based on valid legal facts. When the law is applied to those legal facts, litigants are legitimately bound by the judicial decision, despite the risk of factual inaccuracy. / The bulk of this thesis develops the notion of procedural legitimacy, and argues that its role in the adjudicative process is vital. The argument is founded on the conditions of uncertainty in which legal decisions are made. I show that both liability determinations and damages determinations in personal injury actions are made in conditions of uncertainty, and are dependent on consistency in procedure to maintain legitimacy. Ultimately, I apply the procedural legitimacy argument to admissibility and use of scientific evidence, and endorse the recommendations of the Goudge Inquiry in that respect.

Magistro baigiamajame darbe analizuojami su įrodymų leistinumu ir sąsajumu civiliniame procese susiję aspektai. Įrodymų leistinumas ir sąsajumas aktualūs tuo, kad būtent nuo byloje surinktų įrodymų priklauso galutinis teismo sprendimas ir tai, ar pažeista asmens teisė ar interesas bus tinkamai ir operatyviai apginti. Siekiant tinkamai suprasti leistinumo ir sąsajumo kriterijų reikšmę, pirmoje darbo dalyje pateikiama ir aptariama įrodymų bei įrodinėjimo priemonių samprata. Antroji darbo dalis skiriama įrodymų leistinumo ir sąsajumo kriterijų analizei. Leistinumo kriterijus svarbus tuo, kad apibūdina įrodymų procesinę formą, rinkimo bei tyrimo tvarką, o sąsajumo taisyklė padeda užtikrinti proceso ekonomiškumą bei koncentruotumą. Analizuojant leistinumo aspektą, aptariama ir 2011 10 01 įsigaliojusio nebaigtinio įrodinėjimo priemonių sąrašo reikšmė, nes įsigalioję pakeitimai praplėtė įrodinėjimo galimybes, tačiau paliko neaiškumą dėl konkrečiai neįvardintų įrodinėjimo priemonių leistinumo reikalavimų. Trečioje darbo dalyje dėmesys skiriamas ne tik atskiromis įrodinėjimo priemonėmis gaunamų įrodymų leistinumui, bet ir konkrečių įrodinėjimo priemonių panaudojimui. Aptariami dažniausi būtinojo įrodinėjimo ir draudimo naudoti konkrečiai numatytas įrodinėjimo priemones atvejai. Kaip atskira leistina įrodinėjimo priemonė aptariami elektroniniai įrodymai, kurių panaudojimas civiliniame procese auga. Analizuojant elektroninius įrodymus, pagrindinis dėmesys skiriamas jų autentiškumo ir... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The Master’s thesis analyzes the aspects, related to admissibility and correlativity of evidence in civil procedure. The admissibility and correlativity of evidence are relevant, because a final judgment depends on the evidence collected in the case, and whether the person’s rights or interests will be properly and promptly defended. In order to properly understand the importance of factors of admissibility and correlativity of evidence, the first part of the Thesis presents and discusses the concept of evidence and means of proof. The second part of the Thesis is focused on an analysis of the factors of admissibility and correlativity of evidence. An admissibility criterion is important because it describes the procedural form of evidence, collection and the investigative procedure, and the rule of correlativity helps to ensure economy and concentration of the process. In analyzing the admissibility aspect, the value of a non-finite list of means of proof is also discussed, which came into force on 2011 10 01. These changes which came into force have expanded the capabilities of proof, but have left uncertainty in respect of the requirements of the admissibility of innominate means of proof. The third part focuses not only on the admissibility of evidence obtained by individual means of proof, but also the use of the particular means of proof. Here, the most common cases of necessary proof and prohibition of the use of specifically intended means of proof are discussed... [to full text]

<p>Kenya&rsquo / s December 2007 Presidential elections sparked a wave of violent clashes over allegations of election rigging. The protests broke out along ethnic lines, causing greater civil unrest. There have been allegations that during these outbreaks of violence crimes against humanity were committed. This violence attracted world-wide concern and was universally condemned. Kenya is loathe to prosecute the perpetrators or those who bear the highest responsibility for the alleged commission of crimes against humanity. It has instead established a national investigatory mechanism, the Kenyan Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (hereafter TJRC). This approach adopted by Kenya has been criticized for the fact that it fosters a culture of impunity. However, the Prosecutor of International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) has used his proprio motu powers to initiate an investigation of alleged commission of crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. This research paper has analysed the reasons for the proprio motu intervention of the ICC in Kenyan situation. It also examined whether Kenya was unwilling or genuinely unable to prosecute the perpetrators of the post-election violence of 2007. Furthermore, the paper&nbsp / evaluated the provisions of the Kenyan TJRC, the major shortcomings of the Commission and the challenges it is facing in fulfilling its mandate. In conclusion the paper analysed the relationship between TJRC and ICC and re-evaluate any role that the two bodies could play in dispensing justice in Kenya. But before that, the paper laid down the factual&nbsp / background that led to the proprio motu interevention of the ICC in Kenya where a truth commission had alreday been established.<br /> <br /> &nbsp / </p>

Cette thèse porte sur le statut de l'Etat justiciable en droit international. L'étude de l'Etat, sujet de droit international et justiciable des juridictions internationales, conduit à l'analyse de sa personnalité juridique internationale. Pour connaître le statut juridique de l'Etat et sa possible mise en cause devant une juridiction internationale, il a fallu donner un essai de définition du concept d'Etat et de celui de souveraineté. C'est à partir de la variante souveraineté que se décline le phénomène de justiciabilité de l'Etat en droit international. Dans cette étude, le nouveau droit international tel que proposé par la Charte des Nations en 1945, maintient l'Etat dans son rôle classique de sujet principal du droit des gens, en lui étant tout de même le statut de souverain absolu et inaccessible. En plus du contentieux interétatique classique, le souverain étatique est devenu depuis cette date un acteur contentieux presque banal devant les nouvelles juridictions internationales. C'est ainsi que l'émergence de nouveaux acteurs de la société internationale comme les individus, les entreprises et les ONG, a donné lieu à un nouveau développement conventionnel dans des espaces juridiques qui échappent au contrôle étatique. La protection internationale des droits de l'homme fait passer l'individu de la sphère nationale à la sphère internationale. Le nouveau droit international économique institutionnalisé par le CIRDI en 1965, le nouveau droit de la mer matérialisé par la Convention de Montego Bay de 1982 et le développement des juridictions pénales internationales (lutte contre l'impunité) sont la preuve d'une transformation de l'environnement juridique international où l'Etat n'est plus l'unique centre d'intérêt des rapports internationaux. / This thesis examines the status of the defendant State in international law. The study of State, subject of international law and immune from international courts, led to the analysis of its international legal personality. To know the legal status of the State and its possible questioned before an International Court, it took to give a definition of the concept of sovereignty and state test. It is from the variant sovereignty comes the phenomenon of justiciability of the State under international law. In this study, new international law as proposed by the Charter in 1945, maintains the State in his classic role as main subject of the law of Nations, by taking away all the same absolute and inaccessible sovereign status. In addition to the classical inter-State disputes, the sovereign State has become since that date an almost banal litigation player before the new international courts. It is as well as the emergence of new actors in the international society as individuals, businesses and NGOS, gave rise to a new conventional development in legal spaces that are outside State control. The international protection of human rights puts the individual in the national sphere to the international sphere. The new international economic law, institutionalized by the ICSID in 1965, the new law of the sea, materialized by the Montego Bay Convention of 1982 and the development of international criminal courts (Fight against impunity) are evidence of a transformation of the international legal environment where the State is no longer the only main interest of international reports.

A autora parte da premissa de que a prova pericial dá ensejo a equívocos e, por isso, sua produção deve ser rigorosamente controlada. A partir do enfoque histórico, a autora demonstra como a separação de questões de fato e de direito serve de instrumento ao controle judicial da prova pericial, que deve ser promovido desde a fase da admissibilidade a da valoração, sempre levando em consideração o debate real entre as partes. A autora dedicou grande parte da pesquisa ao estudo do direito probatório da common law, aos precedentes Frye, Daubert, Joiner e Kumho, bem como a outros casos marcantes, para fundamentar seu entendimento de que é tão importante o exame da admissibilidade da prova, como da sua valoração. O controle em todas as etapas da prova pericial, possível de lege lata no Brasil, visa à obtenção de prova idônea, sem a qual não é possível chegar a um resultado legítimo amparado em dados racionais. / The author understands that the expert evidence can give rise to judicial errors and thus, its production should be firmly controlled. Starting from a historical perspective the author shows how the separation of questions of fact and of law affect the procedures and can be used in support of the judicial control of expert evidence, which should be pursued since its admissibility through its evaluation, always considering the real debate between the parties. The author researched the Law of Evidence typical from the common law, the precedents Frye, Daubert, Joiner and Kumho, as well as other remarkable cases to ground its understanding for the relevance of the examination of the admissibility of the evidence and its proper evaluation. The control suggested, possible de lege lata in Brazil, aims at obtaining reliable proof. Without such reliable proof it is not possible to reach a legitimate result, based on rational data, in civil procedure court disputes.

Procédure de juge à juge non contentieuse, le renvoi préjudiciel consiste en une voie de droit qui permet à toute juridiction nationale d’interroger la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne sur l’interprétation du droit de l’Union et sur la validité des actes des institutions européennes. Laissée à la discrétion des juridictions nationales, ou parfois imposée, cette procédure n’est enfermée dans aucun délai particulier. Se pose alors la question du temps, envisageable de différents points de vue, qu’il s’agisse des parties, de la juridiction nationale à l’origine du renvoi et de la Cour de justice en charge du traitement.Il s’agit d’un sujet tout à la fois récurrent et d’actualité, dans la mesure où, notamment, la procédure préjudicielle d’urgence a vu le jour récemment et où les statistiques de la Cour de justice ne cessent de rendre compte des efforts déployés sans relâche pour diminuer les délais de procédure. De même, le nouveau règlement de procédure de la Cour de justice s’efforce de rendre cette procédure aussi célère que possible. La procédure préjudicielle se prête particulièrement à une étude introduisant la dimension temporelle pour de nombreuses raisons. Pour n’en citer qu’une : le délai de la réponse préjudicielle s’ajoute aux délais nationaux, ce qui, selon la position de la juridiction de renvoi, au sein de son ordre, et selon le type de procédure pendant, ouvre de vastes pistes de réflexion. Il ne s’agit pas d’expliquer la procédure préjudicielle uniquement par des considérations d'ordre temporel, mais d’observer cette procédure en prenant en compte les différentes manières dont le temps, au sens juridique du terme, joue un rôle dans cette procédure.Cette thèse développe ainsi deux idées principales : la prise en compte du temps préjudiciel par les juridictions nationales (partie I) et la prise en compte du temps préjudiciel par la Cour de justice (partie II). / As a non-litigious court procedure, the reference for a preliminary ruling is a legal remedy that enables any national court or tribunal to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of Union law and on the validity of acts of the European institutions. Upon discretion of national courts, or sometimes imposed to them, this procedure is not locked up within any particular time frame. This raises the question of time, which may be regarded from different points of view, whether it is one of the parties, of the national court at the origin of the referral, or of the Court of Justice in charge of the processing. The subject is both recurrent and topical, since, in particular, the urgent preliminary ruling procedure has recently emerged and because the statistics of the Court of Justice show constant and countless efforts to reduce the length of the proceedings. Similarly, the new Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice endeavour to make this procedure as fast as possible.The preliminary ruling procedure is particularly suitable for a study introducing the temporal dimension for many reasons. To mention only one: the time for the preliminary ruling procedure comes in addition to the national duration of the trial. This suggests many lines of thought, considering the position of the referring court, within its order, and depending on the different types of courts in general. The goal of the reflexion is not of explaining the preliminary ruling procedure solely by temporal considerations, but of observing this procedure taking into account the different ways in which time, in the legal sense of the term, plays a role in this procedure.This thesis thus develops two main ideas: the taking into account of the prejudicial time by the national courts (or judges) (part I) and the taking into account of the prejudicial time by the Court of justice (part II).

A autora parte da premissa de que a prova pericial dá ensejo a equívocos e, por isso, sua produção deve ser rigorosamente controlada. A partir do enfoque histórico, a autora demonstra como a separação de questões de fato e de direito serve de instrumento ao controle judicial da prova pericial, que deve ser promovido desde a fase da admissibilidade a da valoração, sempre levando em consideração o debate real entre as partes. A autora dedicou grande parte da pesquisa ao estudo do direito probatório da common law, aos precedentes Frye, Daubert, Joiner e Kumho, bem como a outros casos marcantes, para fundamentar seu entendimento de que é tão importante o exame da admissibilidade da prova, como da sua valoração. O controle em todas as etapas da prova pericial, possível de lege lata no Brasil, visa à obtenção de prova idônea, sem a qual não é possível chegar a um resultado legítimo amparado em dados racionais. / The author understands that the expert evidence can give rise to judicial errors and thus, its production should be firmly controlled. Starting from a historical perspective the author shows how the separation of questions of fact and of law affect the procedures and can be used in support of the judicial control of expert evidence, which should be pursued since its admissibility through its evaluation, always considering the real debate between the parties. The author researched the Law of Evidence typical from the common law, the precedents Frye, Daubert, Joiner and Kumho, as well as other remarkable cases to ground its understanding for the relevance of the examination of the admissibility of the evidence and its proper evaluation. The control suggested, possible de lege lata in Brazil, aims at obtaining reliable proof. Without such reliable proof it is not possible to reach a legitimate result, based on rational data, in civil procedure court disputes.

This thesis focuses on the effective regulation of the application for an appeal review reflecting it from the point of its value background, historical development and the relevant case-law. With an intention to point out the necessary backing for the critical assessment of specific elements and the present form of the application for an appeal review in a civil procedure as a whole, the thesis deals with the theoretical basis of the legal remedies in the civil procedure and with the role of the application for an appeal review in their effective regulation. In the thesis, particular attention is paid to the purposes of the application for an appeal review, i.e. to the unification of the case-law and the protection of the rights of an individual in a particular case, as far as to their relation to the legal certainty resulting from the final decisions, which the use of the application for an appeal review undermines. The thesis contains the general conclusions on the relationship between these values and the conclusions on the appropriateness of the regulation of the particular elements of the application for an appeal review, which are connected with these values. A special chapter of this thesis deals with the history of the appeals focusing only on that facts and legal constructs, which are...