La comptabilité est utilisée en droit fiscal pour déterminer les bases imposables des principaux impôts auxquels l‟entreprise est assujettie. C'est en raison de la crédibilité des informations qu'elle contient que la comptabilité est utilisée par le droit fiscal. La crédibilité de ces informations offre une garantie pour l'administration fiscale de remplir sa mission de contrôle avec efficacité. Mais, cette fiabilité permet, en outre, à l'entreprise de déterminer sereinement les bases d'imposition à déclarer et de se défendre en se fondant sur ses données en cas de contestation par l'administration fiscale des résultats déclarés. Néanmoins, dans certaines hypothèses la comptabilité d'une entreprise peut ne pas être considérée comme ayant une valeur probante suffisante et peut être rejetée par l'administration fiscale.Malgré l'importance de la jurisprudence et l'intérêt pratique de cette notion, l'étude de la valeur probante de la comptabilité de l'entreprise, ne semble pas avoir beaucoup inspirée les auteurs. La valeur probante de la comptabilité sera analysée tant sur ses fondements que sur ses caractères essentiels. Quelles sont les conditions que doit remplir la comptabilité pour servir valablement de preuve devant l'administration fiscale ? Dans quelles conditions cette comptabilité peut-elle être rejetée ? En cas de rejet, quels sont les moyens de preuve à la disposition de l‟entreprise ? L'administration fiscale doit-elle ou non apporter la preuve lorsque la comptabilité de l'entreprise comporte de graves irrégularités ? / Accountancy is used in tax law to determine the base of the main duties owed by companies. It is due to the credibility of information contains that accountancy is used by the tax law. The credibility of this information gives a guarantee for the French tax authorities to complete its mission of control with effectiveness. Furthermore, the accountancy reliability allows the company to serenely determine the tax bases to declare and to defend itself by basing on its data when the French tax authorities challenging declared company income. However, in certain hypothesis the company accountancy cannot be considered as having a sufficient convincing value and to be rejected by the French tax authorities.In spite of the practical importance of this notion, the study of the company accountancy convincing value did not seem to have inspired the authors. The accountancy convincing value will be analyzed both on its basis and on its essential characteristics. What are the conditions which accountancy must comply to act legitimately as proof in front of the French tax authorities? In what conditions this accountancy will be rejected? In case of rejection, what are the company means of proof at its disposition? Must the French tax authorities or not bear the burden of proof when the company accountancy contains serious irregularities?

1 Abstract Urgent and unrepeatable acts are an integral part of criminal proceedings and it would be difficult for law enforcement authorities to detect perpetrators of criminal offenses without them. Despite their characteristic of denying fundamental human rights, their implementation is in some cases essential for finding the material truth. This contradiction between the state's effort to maintain security on the one hand and the individual's right to a fair trial on the other poses a risk of possible misconduct for the entire criminal proceedings. The aim of this work was to point out that their implementation has a significant impact on the overall outcome of criminal proceedings considering their changing probative value, or even their absolute ineffectiveness. The individual acts were gradually incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Code from the most general legal boundaries to their present form. However, even today, it cannot be said with certainty that their legal regulation corresponds to the current needs. An analysis of the case law of individual urgent and / or unrepeatable acts shows that their completion by courts is necessary. From the available analysis, the following factors were found to affect the probative value: (i) insufficient reasoning of urgency or non-repeatability, but also...

Syftet med studien var att analysera Moderaternas argument till att slopa straffrabatt för unga lagöverträdare. Studien utgick från en kvalitativ metod och använde en argumentationsanalys för att besvara syftet. Moderaternas motion är en offentlig handling och användes som urval. Den teoretiska utgångspunkten i studien var Garlands teori “acting out”. Teorin problematiserar olika politiska strategier. För att undersöka argumenten i motionen applicerades pro et contra-metoden. En teoretisk modell användes vid sammanvägning av argumentens beviskraft. Resultatet i studien visade att argumenten i Moderaternas motion innehöll moraliska värderingar snarare än faktabaserad information. Resultatet visade även att motionen innehöll otydliga motiveringar till att slopa straffrabatt för unga lagöverträdare. Tesen som framförts i motionen var enligt resultatet inte styrkt av de argument som tagits fram. Argumenten lyfte inte fram någon lösning på den problematik som framförts, utan var enbart något som Moderaterna själva ansåg vara mer rättvist. Vidare tolkades det som att Moderaterna argumenterar på ett sätt som ökar medborgarnas förtroende genom att använda känslostyrda formuleringar. För framtida studier rekommenderas det att analysera argument skrivna av andra politiska partier, som diskuterar straffrättsliga åtgärder för unga lagöverträdare. Det kan bidra till bredare perspektiv och förståelse. / The aim of this study was to analyse the Moderate party´s arguments to remove penalty reduction for young offenders. The study was based on a qualitative method and used an argumentation analysis to answer the purpose of this study. The Moderate party´s proposal is a public document and was used as a sample. The theoretical framework in this study was Garlands theory “acting out”. Acting out problematizes different political strategies. To be able to examine the arguments in the proposal we used the pro et contra-method. A theoretical model was used to put together the arguments probative value. The results in the study showed that the arguments in the proposal contained morale values rather than information based on facts. The results also showed that the proposal contained unclear motivations for removing penalty reduction for young offenders. The thesis in the proposal was according to the results not confirmed by the arguments that were brought up. The arguments did not conclude any solutions on the problem that the proposal mentioned. The arguments were solely built on something that the moderate party considered as fair. Moreover, it was interpreted that the Moderate party uses arguments in ways that increases the citizens trust by using sentences based on emotions. For future studies it is recommended to also do analyse arguments on other political parties that discusses criminal proceedings for young offenders. It can contribute to a broader perspective and understanding.

Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Text in Afrikaans / Until 1988, hearsay-evidence in our legal system was governed by common law. During this period resistance developed regarding the practice that hearsay which complied with certain exceptions could indeed be allowed. Case law excluded further exceptions being added. Legislation was enacted in 1988 in which hearsay was defined, a total exclusionary rule retained, but the Courts given a wide discretion to allow hearsay. Via this legislation a more accommodating stance towards hearsay was introduced. This dissertation aimed at measuring whether the legislation achieved its objectives and consisted of analysing case law and interviewing Judges and Advocates. The conclusion arrived at is that the legislation has only marginally changed the usage of hearsay in our legal system. The major obstacle lies in the attitude of practitioners who continue to distrust hearsay and do not utilize the mechanism provided by statute. / Tot en met 1988, is hoorse-getuienis in ons regstelsel gemeenregtelik beheer. In die tydperk bet besware egter geleidelik ontwikkel veral oor die gekunstelde wyse waarop hoorsê as aan bepaalde uitsonderings voldoen is wel toegelaat is. Regspraak het voorts ook bepaal dat geen verdere uitsonderings toegevoeg kon word nie. In 1988 is wetgewing uitgevaardig waarin hoorsê-getuienis omskryf word, 'n algehele uitsluitingsreel behou word maar aan die howe 'n wye diskresie verleen word om na oorweging van voorgeskrewe faktore, hoorsê wei toe te laat. Die oogmerk van hierdie wetgewing was om 'n meganisme daar te stel om soos by die civil regstelsels en sekere ander Iande, 'n meer toeskietlike houding jeens hoorsê te bewerkstellig. Hierdie verhandeling se hoofdoel was om te bepaal of die wetgewing in die doel geslaag bet. Om tot 'n bevinding te kom is regspraak ontleed, en is onderhoude gevoer beide met Regters en die Advokatuur. Die slotsom bereik dui daarop dat die wetgewing maar weinig verander bet in die gebruikmaking van hoorse-getuienis in ons regstelsel. Wat die wetgewing self betref, hoewel daar sekere besware te make is oor sekere bepalings, verskaf dit tog 'n bruikbare instrument. Die grootste struikelblok is gelee in die instelling van die praktisyns wat bly vasklou aan 'n gevestigde vrees vir hoarse en nie gebruikmaak van die nuwe geleentheid nou deur die wetgewing daargestel nie. / Law / LL.M.

L’officier de l’état civil est l’autorité désignée par la loi pour constater, enregistrer, conserver et exploiter, en la forme authentique, les actes constitutifs de l’individu et de la famille. Le maire, avec ses adjoints, est l’officier de l’état civil par excellence. En sa qualité de représentant de l’État à l’échelon communal, il assure l’administration d’un service accessible et proche des administrés. Le dédoublement fonctionnel qu’induit cette charge tend à satisfaire des besoins tant nationaux qu’individuels. À la fois organe exécutif de la commune et autorité publique déconcentrée, le maire est un acteur original en droit des personnes et de la famille qui lui vaut souvent d’être comparé à un notaire ou à un greffier. Si sa position hybride, à la frontière entre le droit privé et le droit public, présente un intérêt certain au regard des impératifs d’organisation sociale, elle n’en est pas moins perfectible. / The Officer of Civil Status is the authority designated by law to observe, register, keepand exploit, in their authentic form, the constituting acts of individuals and families. The mayor, with his assistants, is the Officer of Civil Status par excellence. As a State's representative at municipal level, he ensures the administration of a service which is accessible and close to the citizens. The two-fold responsibility arising from this function tends to meet both State and individual needs. As an executive municipal body and a decentralized public authority, the mayor plays a unique role in the law of persons and the family law. Therefore, he is often compared to a notary or a registrar. On the borderline between private law and public law, his hybrid position which has a definite interest with regard to the requirements of social organisation, could nevertheless be improved.

Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2018-02-21T12:23:16Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Gustavo Silveira Vieira_.pdf: 1583812 bytes, checksum: adad685ca888109a7ad5ab68719fd33c (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-02-21T12:23:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Gustavo Silveira Vieira_.pdf: 1583812 bytes, checksum: adad685ca888109a7ad5ab68719fd33c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-10-11 / Nenhuma / Pensar o Direito probatório de forma autônoma, para além de uma perspectiva meramente procedimental, é de suma importância para que esse direito fundamental possa ser devidamente utilizado por todos os operadores do Direito, em sua forma mais ampla e a partir de toda sua complexidade, visando a máxima eficiência dos meios de prova para a tutela dos direitos. Efetividade, segurança jurídica e instrumentalidade são exigências que norteiam o Processo Civil contemporâneo, sendo necessário, portanto, que tais valores sejam conjugados de forma dialética e equilibrada, para que, somente então, seja possível uma correta distribuição de funções entre todos aqueles que de alguma forma participam do processo. Necessariamente, essas funções somente poderão ser bem exercidas se os participantes do processo compreenderem a forma correta de se percorrer a fase instrutória com a devida utilização de todos os meios probatórios disponíveis. A prolação de uma decisão justa para a tutela adequada e efetiva dos direitos surge como o objetivo principal do processo, deixando-se de lado o que por muito tempo foi tido como sua finalidade precípua: a eliminação de litígios. Sendo o Direito – e o próprio Processo Civil – um fenômeno cultural, fruto de uma evolução histórica, obviamente que traz em seu contexto orientações lógicas, princípios éticos e hábitos sociais que se propagam no tempo através das mais diversas mentalidades de cada época. É diante desse contexto que o Direito probatório deve ser analisado e, somente a partir de então, os problemas correlatos que envolvem as provas ilícitas. Como intuitivo, é necessário combater toda e qualquer pretensão que busque relativizar normas constitucionais, como é o caso da regra da proibição da prova ilícita. No entanto, deve-se admitir que há casos tão complexos, que não é possível encontrar uma resposta pronta no ordenamento jurídico, e é exatamente nesses casos excepcionais, que o princípio da proporcionalidade, se corretamente utilizado, pode servir como um eficaz instrumento para coibir excessos. / To think of probative law autonomously, beyond a purely procedural perspective, it is of the utmost importance for this fundamental right to be properly used by all the operators of the Law, in its broadest form and in all its complexity, aiming at the maximum efficiency of the means of proof for the protection of rights. Effectiveness, legal certainty and instrumentality are requirements that guide the contemporary Civil Process, so it is necessary that such values be conjugated in a dialectical and balanced way, so that only then be possible a correct distribution of functions between all those who participate in the process. Necessarily, these functions can only be well exercised if the participants in the process understand the correct way to go through the instructional phase with the proper use of all available evidence. The delivery of a fair decision for the proper and effective protection of rights emerges as the main objective of the process, leaving aside what has long been regarded as its primary purpose: the elimination of litigation. Being the Law - and the Civil Process itself - a cultural phenomenon, the fruit of a historical evolution, obviously that brings in its context logical guidelines, ethical principles and social habits that propagate in time through the most diverse mentalities of each epoch. It is facing this background that the evidentiary law must be analyzed and, only then, the related problems that involve the illicit evidence. As intuitive one, it is necessary to combat any pretension that seeks to relativize constitutional norms, as is the case of the rule prohibiting unlawful evidence. However, it must be admitted that there are cases so complex that it is not possible to find a ready response in the legal order, and it is precisely in these exceptional cases, that the principle of proportionality, if correctly used, can serve as an effective instrument to curb excesses.

Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Text in Afrikaans / Until 1988, hearsay-evidence in our legal system was governed by common law. During this period resistance developed regarding the practice that hearsay which complied with certain exceptions could indeed be allowed. Case law excluded further exceptions being added. Legislation was enacted in 1988 in which hearsay was defined, a total exclusionary rule retained, but the Courts given a wide discretion to allow hearsay. Via this legislation a more accommodating stance towards hearsay was introduced. This dissertation aimed at measuring whether the legislation achieved its objectives and consisted of analysing case law and interviewing Judges and Advocates. The conclusion arrived at is that the legislation has only marginally changed the usage of hearsay in our legal system. The major obstacle lies in the attitude of practitioners who continue to distrust hearsay and do not utilize the mechanism provided by statute. / Tot en met 1988, is hoorse-getuienis in ons regstelsel gemeenregtelik beheer. In die tydperk bet besware egter geleidelik ontwikkel veral oor die gekunstelde wyse waarop hoorsê as aan bepaalde uitsonderings voldoen is wel toegelaat is. Regspraak het voorts ook bepaal dat geen verdere uitsonderings toegevoeg kon word nie. In 1988 is wetgewing uitgevaardig waarin hoorsê-getuienis omskryf word, 'n algehele uitsluitingsreel behou word maar aan die howe 'n wye diskresie verleen word om na oorweging van voorgeskrewe faktore, hoorsê wei toe te laat. Die oogmerk van hierdie wetgewing was om 'n meganisme daar te stel om soos by die civil regstelsels en sekere ander Iande, 'n meer toeskietlike houding jeens hoorsê te bewerkstellig. Hierdie verhandeling se hoofdoel was om te bepaal of die wetgewing in die doel geslaag bet. Om tot 'n bevinding te kom is regspraak ontleed, en is onderhoude gevoer beide met Regters en die Advokatuur. Die slotsom bereik dui daarop dat die wetgewing maar weinig verander bet in die gebruikmaking van hoorse-getuienis in ons regstelsel. Wat die wetgewing self betref, hoewel daar sekere besware te make is oor sekere bepalings, verskaf dit tog 'n bruikbare instrument. Die grootste struikelblok is gelee in die instelling van die praktisyns wat bly vasklou aan 'n gevestigde vrees vir hoarse en nie gebruikmaak van die nuwe geleentheid nou deur die wetgewing daargestel nie. / Law / LL.M.

O presente trabalho, mediante a adoção de um modelo objetivo de direito probatório, pretendeu sistematizar os conhecimentos atuais sobre prova testemunhal no direito e, em seguida, submetê-los ao crivo da ciência, notadamente da epistemologia e da psicologia. Assim sendo, apresentam-se, na segunda parte, as premissas do novo direito probatório, demonstrando que o presente trabalho somente tem sentido mediante a adoção de um modelo objetivo de direito probatório, pois somente esse preocupa-se com a qualidade epistêmica da busca da verdade procedida em um processo concreto. Na terceira parte, procede-se com uma ampla pesquisa no direito, incluindo doutrina e jurisprudência de países de civil law, a fim de que se verifique o estado atual da arte a respeito da prova testemunhal no direito, como ela é praticada hoje. Na quarta parte, apresentam-se as principais correntes a respeito da epistemologia do testemunho, notadamente o presuntivismo e o não presuntivismo, a fim de verificar qual das correntes é praticada no direito e qual, na opinião do autor, deveria ser. Na quinta parte, utilizando-se metodologia científica das áreas da saúde, apresentam-se as principais conclusões atuais da psicologia do testemunho, a fim de que se verifiquem quais são as suas fragilidades e quais são os pontos que devem merecer atenção em sua prática. Na sexta parte, utilizando-se os conhecimentos abordados nas quarta e quinta partes, avaliam-se as premissas demonstradas na terceira parte, a fim de que se proponha uma reconstrução da prova testemunhal no direito consentânea com o modelo objetivo de direito probatório e, principalmente, com os conhecimentos mais atuais da ciência. / The present thesis, by adopting an objetive model of evidence law, intends to summarize the current knowledge about witness testimony in law and, in what follows, evaluate it using the science, mainly the epistemology and the psychology. For doing so, it begins, on the second part, with the premises of the new way of working with evidence, showing that the present work has a purpose only by adopting an objetive model of working with evidence, once that only by doing so the proceedings are worried about the epistemic quality of the search for the truth done in a concrete procedure. On the third part, the aim is to proceed with a wide investigation in law, including jurisprudence and precedents of the civil law courts, analysing the current knowledge about witness testimony, in the way its practiced today. On the fourth part, the two main lines of thought on epistemology of testimony, presuntivism and no-presuntivism, are presented, being analysed which one is usually adopted by civil law systems and which one should be, in the author's opinion. On the fifth part, using scientific methodology of the health field, the work presents the main current conclusions of the psychology of testimony, in order to verify what are the fragilities and the points that need attention in the practice of witness testimony. On the sixth part, using the knowledge presented on the fourth and fifth parts, the premises presented on the third part are evaluated, with the purpose of proposing a reconstruction of the witness testimony in law using the objective model of evidence and, mainly, the current knowledge in science.

O presente trabalho, mediante a adoção de um modelo objetivo de direito probatório, pretendeu sistematizar os conhecimentos atuais sobre prova testemunhal no direito e, em seguida, submetê-los ao crivo da ciência, notadamente da epistemologia e da psicologia. Assim sendo, apresentam-se, na segunda parte, as premissas do novo direito probatório, demonstrando que o presente trabalho somente tem sentido mediante a adoção de um modelo objetivo de direito probatório, pois somente esse preocupa-se com a qualidade epistêmica da busca da verdade procedida em um processo concreto. Na terceira parte, procede-se com uma ampla pesquisa no direito, incluindo doutrina e jurisprudência de países de civil law, a fim de que se verifique o estado atual da arte a respeito da prova testemunhal no direito, como ela é praticada hoje. Na quarta parte, apresentam-se as principais correntes a respeito da epistemologia do testemunho, notadamente o presuntivismo e o não presuntivismo, a fim de verificar qual das correntes é praticada no direito e qual, na opinião do autor, deveria ser. Na quinta parte, utilizando-se metodologia científica das áreas da saúde, apresentam-se as principais conclusões atuais da psicologia do testemunho, a fim de que se verifiquem quais são as suas fragilidades e quais são os pontos que devem merecer atenção em sua prática. Na sexta parte, utilizando-se os conhecimentos abordados nas quarta e quinta partes, avaliam-se as premissas demonstradas na terceira parte, a fim de que se proponha uma reconstrução da prova testemunhal no direito consentânea com o modelo objetivo de direito probatório e, principalmente, com os conhecimentos mais atuais da ciência. / The present thesis, by adopting an objetive model of evidence law, intends to summarize the current knowledge about witness testimony in law and, in what follows, evaluate it using the science, mainly the epistemology and the psychology. For doing so, it begins, on the second part, with the premises of the new way of working with evidence, showing that the present work has a purpose only by adopting an objetive model of working with evidence, once that only by doing so the proceedings are worried about the epistemic quality of the search for the truth done in a concrete procedure. On the third part, the aim is to proceed with a wide investigation in law, including jurisprudence and precedents of the civil law courts, analysing the current knowledge about witness testimony, in the way its practiced today. On the fourth part, the two main lines of thought on epistemology of testimony, presuntivism and no-presuntivism, are presented, being analysed which one is usually adopted by civil law systems and which one should be, in the author's opinion. On the fifth part, using scientific methodology of the health field, the work presents the main current conclusions of the psychology of testimony, in order to verify what are the fragilities and the points that need attention in the practice of witness testimony. On the sixth part, using the knowledge presented on the fourth and fifth parts, the premises presented on the third part are evaluated, with the purpose of proposing a reconstruction of the witness testimony in law using the objective model of evidence and, mainly, the current knowledge in science.

O presente trabalho, mediante a adoção de um modelo objetivo de direito probatório, pretendeu sistematizar os conhecimentos atuais sobre prova testemunhal no direito e, em seguida, submetê-los ao crivo da ciência, notadamente da epistemologia e da psicologia. Assim sendo, apresentam-se, na segunda parte, as premissas do novo direito probatório, demonstrando que o presente trabalho somente tem sentido mediante a adoção de um modelo objetivo de direito probatório, pois somente esse preocupa-se com a qualidade epistêmica da busca da verdade procedida em um processo concreto. Na terceira parte, procede-se com uma ampla pesquisa no direito, incluindo doutrina e jurisprudência de países de civil law, a fim de que se verifique o estado atual da arte a respeito da prova testemunhal no direito, como ela é praticada hoje. Na quarta parte, apresentam-se as principais correntes a respeito da epistemologia do testemunho, notadamente o presuntivismo e o não presuntivismo, a fim de verificar qual das correntes é praticada no direito e qual, na opinião do autor, deveria ser. Na quinta parte, utilizando-se metodologia científica das áreas da saúde, apresentam-se as principais conclusões atuais da psicologia do testemunho, a fim de que se verifiquem quais são as suas fragilidades e quais são os pontos que devem merecer atenção em sua prática. Na sexta parte, utilizando-se os conhecimentos abordados nas quarta e quinta partes, avaliam-se as premissas demonstradas na terceira parte, a fim de que se proponha uma reconstrução da prova testemunhal no direito consentânea com o modelo objetivo de direito probatório e, principalmente, com os conhecimentos mais atuais da ciência. / The present thesis, by adopting an objetive model of evidence law, intends to summarize the current knowledge about witness testimony in law and, in what follows, evaluate it using the science, mainly the epistemology and the psychology. For doing so, it begins, on the second part, with the premises of the new way of working with evidence, showing that the present work has a purpose only by adopting an objetive model of working with evidence, once that only by doing so the proceedings are worried about the epistemic quality of the search for the truth done in a concrete procedure. On the third part, the aim is to proceed with a wide investigation in law, including jurisprudence and precedents of the civil law courts, analysing the current knowledge about witness testimony, in the way its practiced today. On the fourth part, the two main lines of thought on epistemology of testimony, presuntivism and no-presuntivism, are presented, being analysed which one is usually adopted by civil law systems and which one should be, in the author's opinion. On the fifth part, using scientific methodology of the health field, the work presents the main current conclusions of the psychology of testimony, in order to verify what are the fragilities and the points that need attention in the practice of witness testimony. On the sixth part, using the knowledge presented on the fourth and fifth parts, the premises presented on the third part are evaluated, with the purpose of proposing a reconstruction of the witness testimony in law using the objective model of evidence and, mainly, the current knowledge in science.