Submitted by Gabriel Cozendey Pereira Silva (gabriel.cozendey@yahoo.com.br) on 2016-02-24T15:08:50Z No. of bitstreams: 1 COZENDEY, Gabriel - Dissertação.pdf: 1949339 bytes, checksum: f68e5a02d6d72333a437e3b647bf7658 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by BRUNA BARROS (bruna.barros@fgv.br) on 2016-03-01T18:01:52Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 COZENDEY, Gabriel - Dissertação.pdf: 1949339 bytes, checksum: f68e5a02d6d72333a437e3b647bf7658 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Marcia Bacha (marcia.bacha@fgv.br) on 2016-03-07T12:44:23Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 COZENDEY, Gabriel - Dissertação.pdf: 1949339 bytes, checksum: f68e5a02d6d72333a437e3b647bf7658 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-07T12:44:45Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 COZENDEY, Gabriel - Dissertação.pdf: 1949339 bytes, checksum: f68e5a02d6d72333a437e3b647bf7658 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-02-23 / O dever constitucional de eficiência administrativa consiste em norma reitora da atividade regulatória e das demais funções estatais. Este trabalho tem o objetivo de investigar seus sentidos, os tipos de norma em que se classifica e as estruturas argumentativas para a sua aplicação. Entende-se, por sentidos, os critérios usados para se considerar que uma conduta ou medida cumpre ou viola o dever de eficiência, incluindo consideração da relação entre meios para o exercício da atividade administrativa e resultados dessa atividade. Parte-se de diagnóstico de indefinição conceitual, na literatura jurídica brasileira, acerca desse dever constitucional, para investigar a existência de subsídios, na jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal, que viabilizem elaboração de conceito. Desse modo, verifica-se, na literatura, multiplicidade de definições. Além disso, o aspecto da análise custo-benefício, referido tanto na literatura sobre economicidade quanto nos textos sobre análise econômica do direito, sugere que o assunto também possa ser abordado de modo a correlacioná-lo ao conceito econômico de eficiência de Kaldor-Hicks ou de maximização da riqueza. Na jurisprudência, foi encontrada grande quantidade de sentidos de eficiência, a indicar que o STF pode não ter um posicionamento claro, senão em relação à concepção do dever constitucional de eficiência como um todo, pelo menos em relação a aspectos do conceito, a implicar a necessidade de elaboração, pelo tribunal, casuisticamente, de critérios para considerar que determinada conduta ou medida cumpre ou viola esse dever constitucional. Verificou-se, ainda, a ocorrência de aparentes divergências entre os ministros não apenas com relação à solução concreta de um caso, mas com relação à definição, em um mesmo caso, do sentido do dever de eficiência. Não se pode afirmar, no entanto, com segurança, que a concepção do dever de eficiência em um acórdão seja determinante, no STF, para a orientação dos votos. Ainda assim, um mesmo caso pode ter soluções distintas a depender do sentido de eficiência que se adote. Ademais, os acórdãos que parecem proceder a análise custo-benefício não se parecem referir a conceitos ou a critérios de eficiência econômica para fundamentar essa análise. Esses acórdãos também raramente fazem referência a dados empíricos. Quanto aos tipos de norma às estruturas argumentativas para aplicação, a literatura faz referência a teorias incompatíveis que dificultam compreender de maneira inequívoca como ocorre essa aplicação. O STF, a seu turno, faz uso de pelo menos 3 (três) estruturas argumentativas para aplicar o dever de eficiência: o consequencialismo, a análise custo-benefício e a ponderação de normas. O uso concomitante da análise custo-benefício e da ponderação de normas, contudo, enseja confusão entre o dever de eficiência e a máxima da proporcionalidade. Nesse contexto, a proposta conceitual busca tornar claros os sentidos, os tipos de norma e os modos de aplicação do dever constitucional de eficiência, mediante adoção de referencial teórico único que seja compatível com os achados de jurisprudência. Sendo assim, propõe-se a classificação do dever de eficiência como sobreprincípio e do dever de economicidade como postulado, com referência às concepções teóricas de Humberto Ávila, buscando-se evitar incorrer nos problemas diagnosticados na doutrina e na jurisprudência. / The constitutional duty of administrative efficiency is a standard norm for regulatory activity and other state functions. This study aims to investigate its meanings, norm classifications and argumentative structures for application. 'Meanings' consist in the criteria used to consider that a conduct or measure complies with or violates the duty to efficiency, including consideration of the relationship between the means for the exercise of administrative activities and the results of these activities. The study departs from a diagnostic of conceptual vagueness in the Brazilian legal literature, to investigate the existence of data, in the judicial precedents of the Supreme Court, which enable the development of a concept. The literature contains a plurality of meanings. Also, the aspect of cost-benefit analysis, referred to in literature on economicidade and in the texts on economic analysis of law, suggests the possibility to correlate economicidade to the economic concepts of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency or of wealth maximization. In judicial precedents, there was a great amount of efficiency meanings, indicating that the Supreme Court may have not a clear position in relation to at least some aspects of the the constitutional duty of efficiency, if not in relation to the concept as a whole. This unclear position might explain a necessity that the court prepares, case by case, criteria for considering that certain conduct or measure complies with or violates the duty of efficiency. There was also the occurrence of apparent disagreements between judges, not only with respect to the solution of a concrete case, but also with respect to the definition, in a case, of the meaning of efficiency. However, the conception of the duty of efficiency in a judgment does not necessarily determin the orientation of votes in the Supreme Court. Still, the same case can have different solutions depending on the meaning of efficiency adopted. Furthermore, the judgments that seem to carry out cost-benefit analysis do not often refer to economic efficiency criteria in support. These judgments also rarely reffer to empirical data. As for the norm classification and the argumentative structures for application of the duty of efficiency, the literature refers to incompatible theories that make it difficult to understand unequivocally how this application happens. The Supreme Court, on its turn, makes use of at least three (3) argumentative structures to apply the duty to efficiency: consequentialism, the cost-benefit analysis and ponderation. Concomitant use of cost-benefit analysis and ponderation, however, gives rise to confusion between the duty of efficiency and the standard of proportionality. In this context, the conceptual proposal carried out by this study seeks to make clear the meanings, the norm classifications and the modes of application of the constitutional duty of efficiency, by adopting a single theoretical framework that is consistent with the case law findings. Therefore, this study proposes the classification of the duty of efficiency as sobreprincípio and the duty of economicidade as postulado, with reference to the theoretical conceptions of Humberto Ávila and seeking to avoid incurring in the problems diagnosed in doctrine and in judicial precedents.

The diploma thesis focuses on tax administration in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia. It deals with the comparison of procedural law of tax administration, compares the principles enshrined in the relevant laws and marginally deals with the principles of good administration. It also compares chosen taxes obligations, which the taxpayer has to comply with towards tax authorities. The thesis also contains recommended solutions for simulated problem situations.

摘 要 資訊時代下，要求國家對於人民提供資訊，係為行政程序要求公開透明化之國家重要任務。近年來，我國法制發展，主要著重在要求政府對不特定多數人公開資訊之相關法制建構。相較於此，課予行政機關於行政程序對特定人民提供資訊，無論是行政機關為單方面的資訊提供，或進一步以對話的方式提供意見的諮詢，為我國法制規範上未予關注之處。現代社會變遷下，行政任務內容朝向複雜及專業化發展，國家扮演的角色亦隨之重新定位，除了在消極方面，要求國家不得過度干預人民權利的行使外；在積極的面向上，國家負有提供人民生存照顧服務的義務。具體落實在一般行政程序當中，由於行政任務的變遷以及法規的繁雜，常使人民難於釐清之間的權益關係，除此之外，在社會行政程序中，程序相對人大多具有在資訊取得較為弱勢之特徵，為了有效落實並達成個別社會給付之目的，需透過行政機關在社會給付行政程序中，提供人民相關協助。 要求國家於行政程序中提供人民相關資訊，涉及正當行政程序在憲法上的定位。釋憲實務對於正當法律程序之發展，及對該概念所為的闡釋，說明程序在憲法上亦受到檢視。除了透過憲法明文規定之權利推導出程序的要求外，特別是在行政領域中，行政程序基本權的肯認，所能發揮人民權利保障的功能，係為近年來實務及學理上，就該權利主張之具體依據及內涵，於法制發展上關注的重心。而要求國家對個別人民提供資訊，足以作為行政程序基本權的具體內涵之一。 在法律的層次方面，基於公益的考量，課予行政機關於行政程序中踐履相關的義務，必須進一步探求系爭法規之規範意旨，透過保護規範理論的操作，探究人民是否具備主觀公權利。我國行政程序法中，並未就行政機關對人民之諮詢及提供資訊義務作一般性規定，然而，在個別社會相關專業法規當中，則存在許多課予行政機關負有諮詢及提供資訊之具體規範。對此，德國法上考量在一般行政程序中，相較於在社會行政程序中的不同需求，將行政機關之諮詢及提供資訊的內容作不同規範，甚至及於行政程序尚未開啟前之程序階段作討論。在我國未就社會給付行政程序另行規範一部專業法規的前提下，在社會給付行政程序中，說明行政機關對個別人民負擔諮詢及提供資訊義務之正當性，分別從行政程序法之一般性規定，及個別社會專業法規之規範作探討。 行政機關違反行政程序行為的法律效果，除了影響系爭行政決定作成的效力外，在國家責任制度方面，透過地位回復請求權之制度建構，俾使人民得請求回復到，如同行政機關已為正確資訊提供之程序地位，進而得為權利之行使及選擇。地位回復請求權對於人民權利保障所能發揮的功能，殊值作為未來我國相關法制度發展的思考面向。 關鍵詞：正當法律程序、正當行政程序、程序基本權、協助義務、良好行政、 諮詢、提供資訊、社會法地位回復請求權、社會行政程序、信賴保護。 / Abstract Under the information age, requiring the State to provide information to the people, is the important tasks for the procedural requirements of transparency. In recent years, the development of Taiwan’s legal system, mainly focused on asking the Government for disclosure of information to public. Compared to this, whether to ask administrative agency to provide information, further to provide advice on ways of dialogue to the specific people were not of the legal norms of the attention. Changes in modern society, the administration task definition faces complex and the specialized development. The role of the State is to reposition, except the negative side, requires that the State shall not interfere unduly with the exercise of the right of the people, on the positive side, the State have obligations to provide the life of care. Realization in general administrative procedure, due to the changes of the administrative tasks, as well as the complexity of regulations, often makes people difficult to clarify the relationship between rights and obligations. In the social administrative procedure, most people are more disadvantaged on the information obtained. In order to effectively implement and achieve social benefits purposes, asked the administrative agency to provide people to assist in the social welfare procedure. Require the State in administrative procedures to provide relevant information to the people, is related to administrative procedures in the positioning of the Constitution. Due process of law in the interpretation of the Judicial Yuan, to illustrate the procedure has also been reviewed in the Constitution. Except through the right of the Constitution provides to derive the requirements specification process, there is necessary to develop the procedural constitutional rights. Especially in administrative area, administrative practice and doctrinal in recent years, are committed to advocating the basis and content of the rights. Require the State to provide information to specific people, enough to serve as one of the content of the procedural constitutional rights. At the level of the legal aspects, based on public interest considerations, obligations of administrative agency in administrative procedures, must further explore whether people have the right of the legal norm. The Administrative Procedure Act of Taiwan, does not provide for the obligation of the administrative agency to consult and provide information to specific people. However, among the social regulations, provides that the administrative agency must provide consultation and information. In this regard, Germany considered the law of general administrative procedure, compared to the different needs in the field of social administrative procedure, provides consulting and providing information in different content, even before the stage has not yet been opened. In the case of social welfare are not standardized administrative procedures and regulations. The legitimacy of the administrative agency in social welfare procedures to provide advice and information to the people of the obligations, can be discussed separately from the general provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, and the requirements of social administrative regulations. If the administrative agency violated administrative procedures, in addition to affecting the validity of administrative decisions made. In the regime of State responsibility, through on the right to recover the procedure status, so that people will ask to return to, as administrative agency to provide correct information, for the exercise of the rights and choices, as the future development of Taiwan's legal system. Key Words：due process of law, due process of administration, the procedural constitutional rights, obligation to assist, Good Administration, consultation, information, the right to recover the procedure status, social administrative procedure, bona fide.