Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:21:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rafael de Oliveira Guimarao.pdf: 2058058 bytes, checksum: 04c1a47b190401da5c198e91b9bcc99d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-04-25 / This paper addresses the issue of knowledge ex officio on the exceptional appeals, namely, appeal to the Superior Court of Justice, extraordinary appeal to the Brazilian Supreme Court and appeal requesting resolution of conflict in previous jurisprudence. The study justifies itself when we see the growth possibilities of knowledge of matters of public order by the judge, and, withal solidifies a defensive jurisprudence in the Superior Courts, and still, when examining the possibility of knowledge of such matters on appeal to the Superior Court of Justice what one sees is the occurrence of such a possibility in the case of knowledge of the appeal. The paper has the intention of identifying whether the matters of public order have constitutional guard, making the balance of principles with the constitutional prohibition inscribed in art. 105, III of CF/88, for instance, that allows to Superior Court of Justice to hear an appeal or the Superior Court of Justice, only where the matter has really been appreciated by lower stage of appeal. The study aims to systematize the possibility of knowledge of matters of public order in exceptional appeals, whether such phenomenon actually takes place, in which cases, and if it implies turn the Superior Courts into a third stage of appeal or not / O presente trabalho tem por objetivo abordar a problemática da cognição de ofício nos recursos excepcionais, quais sejam, recurso especial, extraordinário e embargos de divergência. A necessidade do trabalho surge quando verificamos o crescimento das possibilidades de conhecimento das matérias de ordem pública de ofício pelo magistrado, e, ao mesmo tempo se solidifica uma jurisprudência defensiva nos Tribunais Superiores, e ainda, quando da análise da possibilidade de conhecimento de tais matérias em grau de recurso especial, o que se vê é a ocorrência de tal possibilidade no caso de conhecimento do recurso. O Trabalho tem o intuito de identificar se as matérias de ordem pública tem resguardo constitucional, fazer o contrapeso principiológico com a vedação constitucional insculpida no art. 105, III, da CF/88, por exemplo, que permite que ao Superior Tribunal de Justiça conhecer de um recurso especial, somente no caso de a matéria ter efetivamente sido apreciada pela instância ordinária. O estudo visa sistematizar essa possibilidade de conhecimento das matérias de ordem pública nos recursos excepcionais, se tal fenômeno realmente ocorre, em que casos, e se isso implica em transformar os Tribunais Superiores numa terceira instância ou não

<p>This paper studies the structural issues concerning possible human rights violations found in the Dublin Regulation; An EU regulation aiming to allocate a responsible member state to a third-country-nationals asylum application. It is one of the criticized legal documents within the scholarly field of human rights. Hence, this study aims to study the details of the regulation to find out the elements of the regulation that are prone to human rights violations. Asking the question: What are some details of the Dublin Regulation that could potentially result in human rights violation of the third-country nationals seeking international protection within the territory of member states? Hence, exploring the gap found between the regulation and human rights of the asylum seekers. This was done by a normative legal analysis study of the law, studying the text of the regulation, relevant human rights law, and jurisprudence from two courts of law: ECHR and ECJ. The findings of the study highlights, first, the regulation upholds only the superficial elements of human rights law. Second, the regulation assumes that every member state is a safe country. Third, there is an imbalance of responsibility on either of the two or more member states involved. These are the details of the regulation highlighted in this study that is potentially the result of possible human rights violations and the criticism of the topic. </p>

科学研究費補助金 研究種目:基盤研究(C)(2) 課題番号:08837010 研究代表者:村上 京子 研究期間:1996-1997年度