Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:21:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rubens Carmo Elias Filho.pdf: 1460021 bytes, checksum: c431217bfb26a5874020c5d628143f7f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-10-23 / The study of condominium bylaws and its ensuing restraints to building occupants rights aims to assess the legal grounds for such restrictions, which impose affirmative and negative covenants capable of significantly altering the traditional exercise of ownership rights, particularly the voluntary co-ownership and multi-ownership condominium systems. The validity of such restraints on condominium, brought about by different enjoyment and fruition parameters and limitations on ownership rights, is often disputed in light of the Federal Constitution, on the grounds that ownership constitutes fundamental civil rights. Many quite polemical, however commonplace, restraints addressed in this paper arise from either daily issues in multi-ownership condominia or the different uses of the new shared building facilities. We deem it timely to consider if such restraints indeed impose limitations on ownership rights or rather reveal an incipient understanding on the theme, justifying the research on legal writings and case law intended herein. This paper attempts to present the limitations to the exercise of ownership rights in property held pro indiviso, such as restraints imposed on the owner in either voluntary co-ownership or multi-ownership condominium, two of the most recurring expressions in modern ownership laws. It also assesses what such limitations are, how they are imposed, and what their effectiveness before occupants, third parties and prospective owners can be. To achieve this, we assess the restraints in light of propter rem covenants and speculate whether such type should require the restraints and how they could be routinely imposed both on occupants of multi-ownership condominium, by means of its due inclusion on condominium bylaws, and on holders of voluntary jointly-owned property, about which the law states no registration procedures for condominium bylaws. The study is presented in three modules. The first concerns structural questions on ownership rights, its restrictions and social purpose; the second, the definitions and effects of voluntary co-ownership and multi-ownership condominia; the third, an in-depth look at the restraints imposed on occupants and owners, in a range of daily situations of sheer indignation despite its compliance with applicable laws and resonance with the social and economic context in condominia, grounded in social purpose, ethics, and good faith / O estudo da Convenção de Condomínio e das restrições aos direitos dos condôminos, que dela decorrem, teve como objetivo avaliar qual a fundamentação jurídica para as restrições que impõem obrigações de fazer e não fazer capazes de alterar significativamente o exercício tradicional do direito de propriedade, especificamente no regime do condomínio voluntário e edilício. Tais restrições, no condomínio, decorrentes de diferentes parâmetros de uso e fruição, e regras de conduta delimitadoras do direito de propriedade, muitas vezes, são questionadas quanto ao critério de validade à luz da Constituição Federal, sob o fundamento de que o direito de propriedade constitui direito fundamental. Acontece que muitas das restrições desenvolvidas ao longo do trabalho, bastante polêmicas, mas corriqueiras, decorrem de necessidades condominiais ou de diferentes modos de utilização de novas estruturas edilícias, sendo oportuno avaliar se realmente tais delimitações são violadoras do direito de propriedade ou simplesmente ainda não se consolidou um entendimento a respeito do tema, a justificar a pesquisa doutrinária e jurisprudencial que se pretendeu realizar. O trabalho buscou apresentar as delimitações ao direito de propriedade, no regime condominial, como restrições impostas aos proprietários, sejam eles sujeitos ao regime do condomínio voluntário ou do condomínio edilício, duas expressões do direito de propriedade das mais presentes na sociedade moderna, sendo necessário avaliar como tais restrições são e podem ser impostas, e qual a sua eficácia frente aos condôminos, terceiros e futuros adquirentes. Para tanto, foram avaliadas as restrições, à luz do conceito de obrigação propter rem e se tal qualificação contribuiria para a exigibilidade das restrições impostas, assim como a forma pela qual as restrições poderiam ser regularmente impostas aos condôminos, na seara do condomínio edilício, mediante sua inclusão na Convenção de Condomínio, ou ainda, na seara do condomínio voluntário, para o qual não existe previsão legal de registro da Convenção Condominial. O estudo foi desenvolvido em três módulos, sendo o primeiro voltado às questões estruturais do direito de propriedade, suas restrições, e à função social; no segundo, foram desenvolvidos os conceitos e efeitos do condomínio voluntário e edilício; e, no terceiro, adentrou-se na análise das restrições impostas aos condôminos, em diversas situações comuns da vida condominial, de alta indagação, mas que se mostraram legais, quando observadas as normas aplicáveis e em consonância com o contexto social e econômico do condomínio, pautando-se sempre pela função social, pela ética e boa-fé

L’aléa, véritable « cœur » du contrat d’assurance, ne finit pas de susciter les interrogations lorsqu’il s’agit de préciser plus techniquement son rôle, tout comme sa raison d’être. En première ligne se situe naturellement le débat relatif à la qualification des formes contemporaines d’assurance vie : ce dernier, haut lieu de controverse doctrinale depuis des années, ne s’est toujours pas apaisé malgré l’impressionnant nombre d’études consacrées au sujet. En parallèle, le thème de l’aléa dans les contrats fait également l’objet d’un vif regain d’intérêt, s’invitant dans les colloques et les ouvrages les plus récents. Plus que jamais, les notions de contrat d’assurance et de contrat aléatoire se retrouvent donc au cœur de la polémique. Et cette dernière peut aller bon train, tant le débat reste enfermé dans cette idée courante qu’un contrat est un acte nécessairement créateur d’obligations. Ainsi, l’on s’attache bien souvent à mettre en évidence le déséquilibre des obligations des parties (caractéristique des contrats aléatoires) avant de s’interroger sur son existence dans le contrat d’assurance. Mais cette approche obligationnelle de la structure contractuelle est-elle véritablement pertinente ? Ne devrait-on pas, au contraire, concevoir plus largement les effets de l’acte juridique, et consacrer juridiquement une idée somme toute assez commune dans le langage courant des praticiens : celle d’un transfert de risque ? A l’approche obligationnelle classique, exclusivement focalisée sur l’analyse des prestations des parties (paiement de la prime par le souscripteur ; règlement du sinistre voire couverture du risque par l’assureur), se substituerait ainsi une approche réelle, davantage axée sur le transfert de risque opéré entre les parties. Cette approche réelle, à bien des égards séduisante par rapport à l’approche obligationnelle, permettrait ainsi de porter – entre autres – un regard différent sur la problématique inhérente aux formes contemporaines d’assurance vie. / Hazard is well known for being at the heart of the insurance contract. Nonetheless, it does not stop raising questions about its precise role and raison d’être. Firstly, the debate deals with the qualification of contemporary forms of life insurance; Mecca of doctrinal controversy for years, it still remains topical in spite of the impressive number of studies. Meanwhile, contingency is of intense interest in civil contract law, as well as subject to recent seminars and latest books. More than ever, the notions of insurance contract and of aleatory contract appear as being the “core” issues of a controversy which keeps going well, because the debate may be limited by the idea that a contract is necessarily an act that creates obligations. Thus, the imbalance between the parties’ obligations - characteristic of aleatory contracts – is often highlighted before questioning its existence in the insurance contract. However, it may be wondered as whether to know if such an “obligational” approach of the contract is truly relevant. On the contrary, shouldn’t we consider the effects of the contract through a wider point of view, in order to admit – legally – a quite common idea in everyday language: the transfer of risk? Unlike the obligational approach which is solely focused on the performances of both parties (premium paid by the taker; compensation paid out of the claim or even risk covered by the insurer), that “real” approach would be more focused on the risk that is transferred between the contracting parties. Such a real approach, which seems to be highly more attractive than the obligational one, would offer - among others - a different perspective within the debate that is inherent to the contemporary forms of life insurance.