Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-01T18:18:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao_jorge_araujo.pdf: 569876 bytes, checksum: 5c96b320d4762bb4c0bd11320303e1a9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-05-20 / The improvement of services to under jurisdiction faces a conflict between the need to offer solutions to society ever more rapidly over disputes that it produces and the maintenance of social achievements of great importance, obtained throughout history based on great sacrifice. In this context, the Constitutional Amendment No. 45, December 8, 2004, among other innovations, added to the list of fundamental rights listed in art. 5, of our Constitution, the right to a reasonable duration of the process and means to ensure the speed of its course, and began requiring in the extraordinary is that the passing of the issues discussed in the constitutional case. This institute was regulated by Law No. 11,418 of December 19, 2006, which, however, not exhausted all the matter and left gaps that require some questions about its applicability, a burden on the Supreme Court's role to select which themes are put in this new order, that is, whose interests go beyond the individuality of each party involved in specific cases, which could result in the emergence of conflicts between the thought of Praetorium Exalted and interests of the parties, causing the quickly in providing a court from increasing of filtering procedure eventually might clash with other fundamental rights already enshrined in our legal system. Know what are the criteria adopted by most members of the largest Court of Justice of Brazil to recognize the overall impact because of the relevant issues from the standpoint of economic, political, social or legal, exceeding the subjective interests of the cause of this object reflects the study. Furthermore, the decisions of the STF recognized that the overall impact in the second half of 2010 will be analyzed in order to find out if only the legal aspects were adopted by Praetorium Exalted or other subjective criteria were used to bolster the understanding of Court, demonstrating that the practice of judicial activism is a natural tendency to increasingly delimit the Supreme Court / A melhoria dos serviços prestados aos jurisdicionados enfrenta um conflito entre a necessidade de se oferecer à sociedade soluções cada vez mais rápidas para os litígios por ela produzidos e a manutenção de conquistas sociais de suma importância, obtidas ao longo da história com base em grandes sacrifícios. Nesse contexto, a Emenda à Constituição n. 45, de 08 de dezembro de 2004, dentre outras inovações, acrescentou ao rol dos direitos fundamentais elencados no art. 5º, da nossa Carta Magna, o direito à razoável duração do processo e aos meios que garantam a celeridade de sua tramitação, bem como passou a exigir que nos recursos extraordinários seja demonstrada a repercussão geral das questões constitucionais discutidas no caso. Esse instituto foi regulamentado pela Lei n. 11.418, de 19 de dezembro de 2006, que, contudo, não exauriu totalmente a matéria e deixou lacunas que demandam alguns questionamentos acerca de sua aplicabilidade, recaindo sobre o Supremo Tribunal Federal o papel de selecionar quais temas se enquadrarão nessa nova ordem, isto é, cujos interesses ultrapassam a individualidade de cada uma das partes envolvidas nos casos concretos, o que poderá resultar no surgimento de conflitos entre o pensamento do Pretório Excelso e os interesses das partes, fazendo com que a rapidez na prestação jurisdicional oriunda de mais um dos mecanismos de filtragem processual, eventualmente possa colidir com outros direitos fundamentais já consagrados em nosso ordenamento jurídico. Saber quais são os critérios mais adotados pelos integrantes da maior Corte de Justiça do Brasil para reconhecer a repercussão geral em razão das questões relevantes do ponto de vista econômico, político, social ou jurídico, que ultrapassem os interesses subjetivos da causa reflete o objeto do presente estudo. Além disso, as decisões do STF que reconheceram a repercussão geral no segundo semestre do ano de 2010 serão analisadas, no intuito de se descobrir se apenas os aspectos legais foram adotados pelo Pretório Excelso ou se outros critérios subjetivos serviram para embasar o entendimento da Corte, revelando ser a prática do ativismo judicial uma tendência natural a balizar cada vez mais a atuação do Supremo Tribunal Federal

L’objet de la recherche consiste à mettre en évidence que la prise en compte des violences émeutières requiert une évolution de l’environnement juridique et des méthodes de maintien de la paix publique hérités de notre histoire. Notre dispositif de gestion de l’ordre public est particulièrement adapté au modèle français de manifestation. C’est considérable et exemplaire à beaucoup d’égards mais cela ne peut clore le débat sur les formes de la réaction sociale nécessaires pour répondre aux différentes formes du répertoire de la protestation en particulier à la dynamique complexe des désordres émeutiers.Alors que la manifestation, son encadrement par les forces de sécurité intérieure et son environnement juridique ressortissent à la culture de l’organisation et de l’ordre, les violences émeutières relèvent, quant à elles, de comportements colériques naturels. Elles constituent un objet et un enjeu différents que traduisent notamment la récurrence des crises en milieu urbain et la difficulté d’y faire face de façon satisfaisante.Sur le plan opérationnel comme sur le plan juridique, l’éventail de la réponse aux désordres est particulièrement large, mais il traduit également un double embarras :• Les violences émeutières sont le plus souvent des violences d’expression. Qu’ils en soient conscients ou non, face à ces comportements, le juge et le politique se sont montrés fréquemment indulgents dans un contexte juridique où la liberté d’expression est un droit fondamental et la manifestation une conquête sans équivalent dans notre pays. Les réponses sociale et judiciaire se caractérisent donc par une mansuétude parfois légitime, parfois inadaptée mais souvent mal comprise.• Les modes d’action policiers et les outils du Droit façonnés par l’environnement juridique et la culture de la manifestation, peuvent se révéler inadaptés pour répondre aux émeutes urbaines et conduire à des évolutions aussi variées qu’inappropriées comme la banalisation du recours à des régimes juridiques d’exception et la sédimentation d’une culture d’affrontement entre police et population.Le concept retentissement / identification et l’analyse des colères rebelles et insoumises ouvrent la voie à une adaptation du droit et de la réponse sociale conciliant le respect des droits fondamentaux et le maintien de la paix publique dans l’espace urbain. Tel est l’enjeu de la dialectique « Libertés - Droit - désordres ». / The object of the research is to highlight that rioting violence cannot be dealt with without an evolution of the legal framework and public-order policing inherited from our History. Our way to manage public-order policing is particularly suitable to our French traditional demonstration pattern. It is significant and exemplary in many respects but that alone cannot close the debate about the forms of social reaction that would be necessary to answer the various forms of the repertoire of protest especially the complex dynamics of rioting disorders.Even though the demonstration, its framing by the police and its legal framework are both an order issue and a cultural issue, rioting acts of violence are a natural irascible behaviour of the human nature. Riots are an object and an issue which translate into in recurring urban crises and the difficulty to satisfactorily deal with them.From an operational point of view and from a judicial one, there is a wide range of answers to the disorders but this results in a double embarrassment:• Riots are very often a means of expression. Consciously or not, the judge and the policy-maker have frequently been indulgent with these behaviours in a legal context in which freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and demonstrating a conquest without equivalent in our country. Social and judicial answers are characterized by indulgence, sometimes legitimate, sometimes inadequate and often ill-understood.• Policing and the tools of the law that were shaped by the legal framework and the culture of demonstration can prove to be inadequate to cope with urban riots and they can result in various as well as inappropriate answers like the trivialization of emergency legal schemes and the sedimentation of a culture of clash between people and the police.The repercussion and identification concept and the analysis of the rebel and unsubdued bouts of anger pave the way to an adaptation of the law and the social response aiming at balancing both the expression of the basic rights and the preservation of public peace in urban areas. This is what is at stake with the dialectics « Liberties – Law – Disorder ».