Nessa dissertação, pretendemos analisar a valorização dos precedentes judiciais pelo Direito Processual Civil brasileiro. Para tanto, no primeiro capítulo faremos algumas considerações gerais sobre os sistemas de common e civil law, principalmente no tocante ao tema desta pesquisa: os precedentes judiciais. Diante da comparação entre os dois sistemas, poderemos demonstrar que há uma inegável aproximação entre eles, principalmente no que concerne aos precedentes judiciais. Com relação ao Direito brasileiro, muito embora a valorização dos precedentes seja alternativa eficaz para propiciar segurança jurídica e igualdade ao jurisdicionado, e imprimir celeridade à marcha processual, as técnicas de operação com precedentes já existentes, recentemente inseridas e aquelas que se pretende inserir, devem ser pensadas à luz dos referidos princípios constitucionais e de acordo com a nossa realidade. Nesse contexto, estudaremos, no segundo capítulo, os princípios que orientam o tema da presente pesquisa, para que possamos, no terceiro capítulo, analisar individualmente cada técnica processual relacionada ao nosso tema, de forma a verificar a contribuição que cada uma trouxe ao ordenamento jurídico, bem como ao ideal de concretização dos princípios relacionados no capítulo anterior. Por fim, no quarto capítulo abordaremos o Projeto do novo Código de Processo Civil, que, conforme será demonstrado, dá continuidade ao movimento de valorização dos precedentes judiciais pelo Direito Processual Civil brasileiro, na medida em que estabelece normas para vinculação dos Juízes e Tribunais ao entendimento dos Tribunais superiores, bem como cria novo mecanismos de operação com precedentes judiciais. / In this work, we intend to analyze the enhancement of judicial precedents by the Brazilian Civil Procedure Law. In this end, in the first chapter, we will make some general remarks on the common law and civil law systems, especially regarding the topic of this research: judicial precedents. Following the comparison of these two systems, we will be able to demonstrate that there is an undeniable closeness between them, especially with regard to judicial precedents. With respect to Brazilian Law, although the contemporary tendency towards increasing the significance of precedent is an effective alternative that provides legal certainty and equality to all citizens, and to expedite Court proceedings, the procedural techniques regarding precedents should be analyzed in light of the constitutional principles listed above and in accordance with our reality. In this context, in the second chapter, we study the principles that guide the focus of this research, so that, in the third chapter, we can individually analyze each procedural technique related to our topic, in order to verify the contribution that they make to the legal system, as well as to the ideal of embodiment of the principles listed in the previous chapter. Finally, in the fourth chapter, we will discuss the project of the new Code of Civil Procedure, which, as will be shown, continues the movement towards increasing the value of judicial precedents by Brazilian Civil Procedure Law, extending the standards for binding lower court judges to the understandings of the higher courts and creating new mechanisms for operating with judicial precedents.

The aims of this essay were to investigate whether it was possible to read out the social class of the parents in judgments from the District Court concerning 2Åò LVU, the law of special provisions due to care for children, and whether the results was considered legally secure or if the outcome was affected by the parents' social class. We chose to use a content analysis where we analyzed 25 court judgments with help of the concepts social class, discrimination and legal certainty. This meant that we worked on the basis of a deductive analysis method in order to be able to summarize and interpret our results. What emerged in our result was that the incidence of social class in the verdict was very small. What could have been decisive was whether the parents' professions had been clearly presented in the judgment, which they were in very few cases. Therefore, we chose not only to use the parent's work as a marker for social class but also added categories such as everyday life/ routines, violence, housing, the parents childhood/mental health and social network. However, these categories were not able to individually answer our question. Hence, we instead chose to make a comparison between the categories. What the result showed us was that people with an ethnicity, other than Swedish, tended to get forcible custody of their children due to child abuse more often than parents without another ethnicity than Swedish.

<p>The main purpose of this study was to examine how social workers interpret and legally practice the 6 § LVU (Care of Young Person´s Act) in regards to legal cer-tainty. The papers intention was to investigate and describe the legal scopes limits and deficiencies, linked to practical social work. The study was composed on a legal dogmatic method which implies to examine the law and its elaboration. The investi-gation was based on different court rulings of care of youths according mostly to 6 § LVU. Perusal and interpretation of the rulings have been necessary in order to clarify the issues. The investigation was also based on Professor Asbjørn Kjønstad's analysis method of social work. In addition to accomplish the purpose of the study following legal principles have been mentioned and used: objectivity principle, principle of le-gal certainty, principle of equal treatment, the official principle, principle of propor-tionality, the timeliness principle and the urgency principle. The analysis shows that 6 § LVU has deficiencies which leads to difficulties for social workers to interpret and use the law in practical social work. The total conclusion of this study is that 6 § LVU requires revision in order to ensure citizens legal certainty.</p>

As the globalization of companies increases day by day, the need for a clear and comprehensible legislation to overcome the problems with transfer pricing transactions increases as well. Incorrect pricing in transfer pricing situations between companies with close economic ties to each other makes countries risk parts of their taxation income. Swedish legislation uses the internationally accepted arm’s length principle to regulate the transfer pricing transactions. Through the correction rule, the rule is upheld that the pricing between two companies with close economic ties to each other must apply to the same conditions as it would have been if it was between two companies without close economic ties to each other. To ensure that enough material is provided to base the assumption whether or not the correction rule has been followed or not, Swedish legislation provides a number of paragraphs to regulate the matter. The legislation is spread all over and is hard to interpret. The question rises whether this is against the rule of legal certainty or not. The taxation authority has provided a proposition on new legislation with tougher documentation requirements where it also wants to give itself part of the power by through directions exactly define what the documentation shall include. Yet again the question is raised whether or not this is against the rule of legal certainty or not. / I takt med att globaliseringen av företag ökar, ökar också behovet av en klar och tydlig lagstiftning för att överkomma problemen med internprissättningstransaktioner. Vid oriktig prissättning vid transaktioner mellan företag i ekonomisk intressegemen-skap riskerar länder att gå miste om delar av sin skattebas. Svensk lagstiftning använder sig av den internationellt accepterade armlängdsprincipen för att reglera internprissättningstransaktioner. Genom korrigeringsregeln regleras att prissättningen mellan två företag i ekonomisk intressegemenskap måste ske under samma förutsättningar som skulle ha gällt mellan två företag utan ekonomisk intressegemenskap. För att få underlag till huruvida korrigeringsregeln har följts eller inte finns ett antal lagrum i svensk rätt som reglerar dokumentationskrav. Denna lagstiftning är spridd och anses vara svårtolkad. Frågan uppstår om detta strider mot rättsäkerheten. Skatteverket har kommit med ett förslag på ny lagstiftning med skärpta dokumentationskrav där man dessutom vill ge sig själv delar av makten att genom föreskrifter exakt bestämma vad dokumentationen skall innehålla. Återigen väcks frågan om det-ta är förenligt med rättssäkerheten.

Direct taxation is an area which has not been harmonized entirely within the European Community. Nevertheless, the ECJ has in its case law stated that even though direct taxation falls within the competence of the Member States, they may not exercise that competence by breaching EC law. At the same time the EC Treaty provides certain exceptions in the form of justifications for national measures resulting in such breach of EC Law. The justification grounds provided by the EC Treaty are, however, limited and general and not suitable for justifying tax measures. That is why the rule of reason has played such an important role within the area of direct taxation. The rule of reason made it possible to in-voke justification grounds that were not expressly mentioned in the EC Treaty. Since the list of justifying grounds, not provided by the EC Treaty, is open-ended, Member States have been invoking several different justifying grounds which were suitable for tax measures. One of those justification grounds which has been used the most is the preservation of the cohesion of the national tax system. The first time the cohesion of a national tax system was brought forward as a justifying reason for a restrictive measure was in the Bachmann case. There the ECJ held that the Belgian legislation could be justified on the ground of the cohesion of the national tax system. However, the ECJ has been applying the cohesion justification very restrictively and never accepted it as a valid justification ground after the Bachmann case. What the ECJ has done in subsequent cases is to develop the meaning of the principle and adding new criteria which must be fulfilled in order for the cohesion justification to be successfully invoked. However, during this course the ECJ has been very unclear and inconsistent, harming legal certainty, which taxpayers are supposed to expect. Even in the doctrine, authors have been questioning the validity of the cohesion justification due to the ECJ’s reluctance to accept it again. In connection with recent case law concerning cross-border dividend taxation, voices have been heard, demanding the ECJ to address the cohesion justification once more in order to set out clear boundaries for its application and to disperse the current legal uncer-tainty regarding the matter. As a consequence the aim of this paper is to analyze the appli-cation of the cohesion justification to cross-border dividend situations from a legal certainty perspective. As becomes clear from analyzing recent cross-border dividend cases, the ECJ seems to have departed from earlier established criteria and a new line of thought seems to direct the development towards the introduction and application of new criteria. Conclusively, we have found that the application of the cohesion justification by the ECJ has been very inconsistent and that this inconsistency has led to a considerable degree of legal uncertainty, making it difficult to predict the outcomes of future cases. Therefore, we conclude that the ECJ should take the opportunity, which has presented itself in recent cases concerning cross-border dividend taxation, to clarify the cohesion justification and set out clear definitions for how to apply it.

<p>Direct taxation is an area which has not been harmonized entirely within the European Community. Nevertheless, the ECJ has in its case law stated that even though direct taxation falls within the competence of the Member States, they may not exercise that competence by breaching EC law. At the same time the EC Treaty provides certain exceptions in the form of justifications for national measures resulting in such breach of EC Law. The justification grounds provided by the EC Treaty are, however, limited and general and not suitable for justifying tax measures. That is why the rule of reason has played such an important role within the area of direct taxation. The rule of reason made it possible to in-voke justification grounds that were not expressly mentioned in the EC Treaty. Since the list of justifying grounds, not provided by the EC Treaty, is open-ended, Member States have been invoking several different justifying grounds which were suitable for tax measures. One of those justification grounds which has been used the most is the preservation of the cohesion of the national tax system.</p><p>The first time the cohesion of a national tax system was brought forward as a justifying reason for a restrictive measure was in the Bachmann case. There the ECJ held that the Belgian legislation could be justified on the ground of the cohesion of the national tax system. However, the ECJ has been applying the cohesion justification very restrictively and never accepted it as a valid justification ground after the Bachmann case. What the ECJ has done in subsequent cases is to develop the meaning of the principle and adding new criteria which must be fulfilled in order for the cohesion justification to be successfully invoked. However, during this course the ECJ has been very unclear and inconsistent, harming legal certainty, which taxpayers are supposed to expect. Even in the doctrine, authors have been questioning the validity of the cohesion justification due to the ECJ’s reluctance to accept it again. In connection with recent case law concerning cross-border dividend taxation, voices have been heard, demanding the ECJ to address the cohesion justification once more in order to set out clear boundaries for its application and to disperse the current legal uncer-tainty regarding the matter. As a consequence the aim of this paper is to analyze the appli-cation of the cohesion justification to cross-border dividend situations from a legal certainty perspective. As becomes clear from analyzing recent cross-border dividend cases, the ECJ seems to have departed from earlier established criteria and a new line of thought seems to direct the development towards the introduction and application of new criteria.</p><p>Conclusively, we have found that the application of the cohesion justification by the ECJ has been very inconsistent and that this inconsistency has led to a considerable degree of legal uncertainty, making it difficult to predict the outcomes of future cases. Therefore, we conclude that the ECJ should take the opportunity, which has presented itself in recent cases concerning cross-border dividend taxation, to clarify the cohesion justification and set out clear definitions for how to apply it.</p>

<p>As the globalization of companies increases day by day, the need for a clear and comprehensible legislation to overcome the problems with transfer pricing transactions increases as well. Incorrect pricing in transfer pricing situations between companies with close economic ties to each other makes countries risk parts of their taxation income.</p><p>Swedish legislation uses the internationally accepted arm’s length principle to regulate the transfer pricing transactions. Through the correction rule, the rule is upheld that the pricing between two companies with close economic ties to each other must apply to the same conditions as it would have been if it was between two companies without close economic ties to each other.</p><p>To ensure that enough material is provided to base the assumption whether or not the correction rule has been followed or not, Swedish legislation provides a number of paragraphs to regulate the matter. The legislation is spread all over and is hard to interpret. The question rises whether this is against the rule of legal certainty or not.</p><p>The taxation authority has provided a proposition on new legislation with tougher documentation requirements where it also wants to give itself part of the power by through directions exactly define what the documentation shall include. Yet again the question is raised whether or not this is against the rule of legal certainty or not.</p> / <p>I takt med att globaliseringen av företag ökar, ökar också behovet av en klar och tydlig lagstiftning för att överkomma problemen med internprissättningstransaktioner. Vid oriktig prissättning vid transaktioner mellan företag i ekonomisk intressegemen-skap riskerar länder att gå miste om delar av sin skattebas.</p><p>Svensk lagstiftning använder sig av den internationellt accepterade armlängdsprincipen för att reglera internprissättningstransaktioner. Genom korrigeringsregeln regleras att prissättningen mellan två företag i ekonomisk intressegemenskap måste ske under samma förutsättningar som skulle ha gällt mellan två företag utan ekonomisk intressegemenskap.</p><p>För att få underlag till huruvida korrigeringsregeln har följts eller inte finns ett antal lagrum i svensk rätt som reglerar dokumentationskrav. Denna lagstiftning är spridd och anses vara svårtolkad. Frågan uppstår om detta strider mot rättsäkerheten.</p><p>Skatteverket har kommit med ett förslag på ny lagstiftning med skärpta dokumentationskrav där man dessutom vill ge sig själv delar av makten att genom föreskrifter exakt bestämma vad dokumentationen skall innehålla. Återigen väcks frågan om det-ta är förenligt med rättssäkerheten.</p>

Submitted by Ana Valéria de Jesus Moura (anavaleria_131@hotmail.com) on 2014-07-23T20:56:24Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação_Mestrado_Tadeu_Cincurá_de_A._S._Sampaio.pdf: 1005274 bytes, checksum: 781347a7cf25d5bfd8bfc7eb6c8d3394 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ana Valéria de Jesus Moura (anavaleria_131@hotmail.com) on 2014-07-23T20:56:37Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação_Mestrado_Tadeu_Cincurá_de_A._S._Sampaio.pdf: 1005274 bytes, checksum: 781347a7cf25d5bfd8bfc7eb6c8d3394 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2014-07-23T20:56:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação_Mestrado_Tadeu_Cincurá_de_A._S._Sampaio.pdf: 1005274 bytes, checksum: 781347a7cf25d5bfd8bfc7eb6c8d3394 (MD5) / A presente dissertação apresente o resultado da investigação do fortalecimento dos precedentes judiciais como fonte de direito e sua irradiação na mudança do paradigma sistemático processual com a contaminação cultural da tradição common law em busca de segurança jurídica, confiança no judiciário, previsibilidade, igualdade e acesso à justiça em tempo razoável, identificando a reclamação constitucional como instrumento de fortalecimento da jurisprudência do tribunal baiano diante da evidente necessidade de mudança da cultura de resistência aos precedentes judiciais vinculantes e o caráter criador do juiz. Demonstra a constitucionalidade da reclamação no Tribunal de Justiça da Bahia, destacando sua utilidade para efetividade da celeridade, duração razoável do processo, segurança jurídica e, sobretudo, a igualdade. Enfim, identifica as transformações paradigmáticas da introdução dos precedentes judiciais vinculantes e obrigatórios no direito brasileiro, bem como a aplicação e a necessidade de mudanças pragmáticas no Tribunal de Justiça do Estado da Bahia e na prática organizacional judiciária e jurisdicional para inaugurar um novo atuar dos magistrados.

One of the most important figures of Registry Law is the inscription: The reason for theregistration procedure. It seeks, through it,to grant legal protection to the owner of the registration, by the registration publicity itbrings.In this article, the author analyzes thisimportant legal figure, by focusing on the article 2013 of the Peruvian Civil Code, whichhe considers must be renovated and updated, according to the circumstances and recent regulatory changes. / Una de las figuras más importantes del Derecho Registral es la inscripción: La razón del procedimiento registral. Se busca, a través de ella, conceder protección jurídica al titular dela inscripción, valiéndose de la publicidad registral que ésta otorga.En el presente artículo, el autor realiza un análisis de esta importante figura legal, centrándose para ello en el artículo 2013 del Código Civil del Perú, el cual considera debe ser reformado y actualizado acorde a las circunstancias y modificaciones normativas  de los últimos años.

Le régime des autorisations d’urbanisme était l’objet de nombreuses critiques en raison de sa complexité, de l’incertitude du délai d’instruction et de l’imprévisibilité de la décision administrative. Cette situation résultait de l’accumulation des modifications sans vision d’ensemble. Les acteurs du droit de l’urbanisme n’étaient pas en mesure de prévoir aisément un résultat et de compter sur celui-ci.L’ordonnance du 8 décembre 2005 et la loi du 13 juillet 2006 réforment ce régime afin d’améliorer la sécurité juridique des acteurs du droit de l’urbanisme. Pendant de la loi du 13 décembre 2000 pour les documents d’urbanisme, cette réforme réécrit le Livre IV du Code de l’urbanisme.La réforme a intégré la sécurité juridique dans le droit de l’utilisation et de l’occupation des sols. La réforme a pour objectifs de clarifier le champ d’application des autorisations d’urbanisme en regroupant les travaux, de simplifier la procédure d’instruction, de garantir la prévisibilité de la décision administrative. Ces objectifs correspondent aux prescriptions techniques de la sécurité juridique, à savoir : la stabilité et la prévisibilité du droit.Entrée en vigueur depuis le 1er octobre 2007, le bilan de la réforme peut désormais être établi. Présentée comme un renforcement de la sécurité juridique du constructeur ou de l’aménageur, la réforme améliore l’efficacité de l’action administrative. La sécurité juridique de l’opérateur s’en trouve renforcée par ricochet.Le processus décisionnel a été aménagé pour sécuriser la délivrance des autorisations d’urbanisme. La réforme du contentieux de l’urbanisme vise aujourd’hui à renforcer la sécurisation des autorisations et la réalisation des constructions et des opérations d’aménagement. / The system of planning permissions was the subject of a number of criticisms because of its complexity, uncertainty regarding the length of the process and the unpredictability of administrative decisions. This situation was the result of piecemeal amendments being made without being considered as a whole. Those using the planning law were not able to easily foresee the outcome or be able to rely on it.The Ordonnance of 8 December 2005 and the Law of 13 July 2006 reformed this system in order to improve the legal certainty of those using the planning law. Part of the Law of 13 December 2000 relating to planning documents, this reform rewrote Book IV of the Planning Code.The reform integrated legal certainty in the law relating to the use and occupation of land. The aim of the reform is to clarify the circumstances in which planning permission is required by regrouping works, simplifying the application procedure and improving the foreseeability of administrative decisions. These objectives correspond with the technical guidance of legal certainty, namely: stability and predictability of the law.Being in force since 1 October 2007, the impact of the reform can now be assessed. Presented as strengthening the legal certainty of builders and developers, the reform improved efficiency of the administrative process. As a result the legal certainty of users has been strengthened.The decision making process has been set up to bring certainty to the granting of planning provisions. The reform of planning disputes is currently aiming to ease the granting of permissions and carrying out building and development projects.