Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:27:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Alexandre Sansone Pacheco.pdf: 607413 bytes, checksum: 49c0d01f6bafc226910b87244538303d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-06-20 / The rates required by the Brazilian Federal Government when exploring the use of its real estates are ruled by federal legislation with which were established the emphyteusis payments, the rates of occupation, legitimacy and use, the public rental and charges requested for rental under special conditions, the public transfer of use and the permission to use. Because the normative structure of these public prices are very close to those taken by taxes and also considering that some of the real estate charges in question have themselves elements of the tax species it is necessary to investigate on how these tax rules differ from real estate collection. It is hereby demonstrated that it is not acceptable that the Brazilian Federal Government takes elements drawn from its acts of sovereignty, like its taxing power, to explore the public real estate of their available assets. In fact, in that economic field the State operates without any public interest, producing, with the individuals, agreements that are essentially ruled by Private Law. The absence of material and formal limits for the institution of public real estate prices also does not justify the establishment by the State of any legal standards to explore its real estates. To conclude we should always meet the cause and the function of these collections, and when these premises are not observed the various legislative abuses practiced in this area would be challenged / As prestações exigidas pela União na exploração do uso de seus bens imóveis são regradas pela legislação federal, com a qual se instituiu os laudêmios e o foro públicos, as taxas de ocupação, de legitimação e de utilização, o aluguel e as cobranças levadas a efeito com fundamento no arrendamento mediante condições especiais, na cessão de uso e na permissão de uso. Em razão da estrutura normativa desses preços públicos vir a ser muito próxima da assumida pelos tributos e considerando, ainda, que algumas das cobranças imobiliárias em questão apresentam elementos próprios das espécies tributárias é necessário investigar no quê se distinguem as normas tributárias das normas com as quais ingressam nos cofres públicos tais prestações patrimoniais. Verifica-se não ser admissível que a União aproveite elementos tirados de seus atos de soberania para explorar os bens de seu patrimônio disponível, pois, nessa seara econômica, o Estado atua despido de qualquer interesse público, produzindo, com os particulares, acordos de vontade que são regrados, essencialmente, pelo Direito Privado. A ausência na legislação de limites materiais e formais para a instituição dos preços públicos imobiliários também não justifica a postura pela União de quaisquer normas jurídicas para a exploração de seus bens imóveis. Há de se atender à causa e à função dessas cobranças, sendo que, por desconsideram essas premissas firmadas, são impugnáveis os diversos abusos legislativos praticados nesse domínio

Le développement des modes alternatifs de règlement des différends dans les contrats administratifs est une nécessité. En effet, l’encombrement des juridictions administratives, conjugué au besoin d’un règlement des différends plus consensuel et apaisé, plaide en faveur de l’émergence d’une justice alternative. Néanmoins, l’ordre public encadrant l’activité des personnes publiques, et protégé par des normes impératives, impose que le développement des modes alternatifs soit régulé. À ce titre, l’étude du droit positif démontre que ce phénomène n’est pas inconnu dans le règlement des différends intéressant les contrats administratifs. Par exemple, les parties à un différend peuvent déjà librement recourir aux modes amiables (médiation, conciliation ou transaction), et quelques dérogations au principe d’interdiction faite aux personnes publiques de recourir à l’arbitrage sont prévues. Cela étant, les lacunes et les défaillances du régime actuel des modes alternatifs dans les contrats administratifs (absence de véritable statut du médiateur, défaut d’encadrement de la conciliation inter partes, complexité de la notion de concessions réciproques ou, encore, difficulté pour le juge administratif d’asseoir sa compétence en matière d’arbitrage international...) complexifient leur compréhension et leur mise en œuvre et risquent, par suite, d’accroître les violations de l’ordre public. Il est donc nécessaire de proposer un régime pérenne des modes alternatifs permettant d’assurer, d’une part, la protection des normes impératives du droit public et, d’autre part, la liberté des parties dans le choix et la conduite d’une justice alternative. Pour cela, leur futur régime devra autoriser l’arbitrage dans les contrats administratifs et le doter de garanties procédurales prenant en compte sa nature spécifique mais, aussi, certaines caractéristiques inhérentes aux personnes publiques et au droit administratif. De même, les procédures de médiation et de conciliation devront être améliorées afin d’assurer aux parties, un encadrement souple et favorable à la conclusion de transactions équilibrées et sécurisées. Enfin, ce régime devra définitivement consacrer le rôle du juge administratif. À cet effet, ce dernier pourra être amené à assister les parties dans la mise en œuvre des modes alternatifs (création d’un juge administratif d’appui dans l’arbitrage, combinaison des procédures de référé avec les modes amiables...). Le juge administratif devra être aussi chargé du contrôle de conformité de la solution alternative à l’ordre public. Cette attribution de compétence, qui résonne de plus fort en matière d’arbitrage international, est indispensable à la protection de l’intérêt public. Ce n’est qu’à ces conditions, que le développement des modes alternatifs de règlement des différends pourra prendre toute sa place dans les contrats administratifs. / The development of alternative dispute resolution in administrative contracts is a necessity. Indeed, the congestion of the administrative courts, combined with the need for a more consensual and calm settlement of disputes, pleads in favour of the emergence of an alternative justice. Nevertheless, the public order governing the activities of public bodies, and protected by imperative norms, requires that the development of alternative methods be regulated. As such, the study of positive law shows that this phenomenon is not unknown in the settlement of disputes concerning administrative contracts. For instance, the parties to a dispute can already freely resort to amicable methods (mediation, conciliation or settlement agreement), and some exceptions to the principle prohibiting public bodies from resorting to arbitration are provided for. However, the voids and shortcomings of the current system of alternative dispute resolution in administrative contracts (lack of proper status of the mediator, paucity of framework for inter partes conciliation, complexity of the concept of reciprocal concessions or, difficulty for the administrative judge to assert its competence in international arbitration...) make its understanding and implementation more complex and more prone to increasing public order violations. It is therefore necessary to propose a sustainable regime of alternative methods to ensure, on the one hand, the protection of peremptory norms of public law and, on the other hand, the freedom of the parties in the choice and conduct of an alternative justice. For that purpose, the future regime will have to authorize arbitration in administrative contracts and endow it with procedural guarantees taking into account its specific nature but also certain characteristics inherent in public entities and administrative law. Furthermore, the mediation and conciliation procedures will have to be improved in order to provide the parties with a flexible framework conducive to the conclusion of balanced and secure settlement agreements. Finally, this regime must definitively establish the role of the administrative judge. To this end, that judge may be called upon to assist the parties in the implementation of alternative methods (creation of an administrative support judge in arbitration, combination of interim reliefs with amicable procedures...). The administrative judge must also be responsible for checking the compliance of the alternative solution to the public order. This attribution of jurisdiction, which is resonates all the more in international arbitration, is fundamental for the protection of the public interest. It is only under these conditions that the development of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can take its place in administrative contracts.