Construção de uma responsabilidade europeia além-fronteiras

The suppression of internal border controls has led the European Union to establish a mechanism for determining the Member State responsible for examining each asylum application, with the main intention of deterring asylum seekers from lodging multiple applications and guaranteeing that it will be assessed by one of the States – the Dublin System. Even though it holds on a variety of criteria, the most commonly used is the country of first entrance in the EU. The growing migrating flows coming mainly from Northern Africa have thus resulted in an incommensurable burden over the border countries. Gradually, countries like Greece, Bulgaria and Italy have lost capability of providing adequate relief to all asylum seekers and the records of fundamental rights violations related to the provision of housing and basic needs or inhuman detention conditions started piling up. To prevent asylum seekers who had already displaced themselves to other Member States from being transferred back to countries where their human dignity is questionable, the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice have developed a solid jurisprudence determining that when there is a risk of serious breach of fundamental rights all transfers to that country must halt, especially when it is identified with systemic deficiencies in the asylum system and procedures. This reflexion will go through the jurisprudence that influenced very recent legislative amendments, in order to identify which elements form part of the obligation not to transfer under the Dublin System. At last, we will critically analyze the new rising obligation, that has clearly proven insufficient in light of the international fundamental rights framework that the Member States and the EU are bound to respect, proposing substantial amendments with a view to reach a future marked by high solidarity and global responsibility from the European Union.

Períodos de Fidelização

This dissertation aims to study the loyalty clauses present in most of the long lasting service contracts. We introduce its main features and the consequences that arise from breaching of contract. We analyze the presence of loyalty periods in the Portuguese legislation. In this sense, we discuss Decree-Law 446/85, Law 24/96, Decree-Law 57/2008 and Decree-Law 56/2010. The loyalty period is the minimum period of time for which the contract should be maintained. In most cases, when this obligation is not fulfilled a penalty clause is set, intending to push the weaker party to comply with the contract or sanction it when the party fails to do so. We conclude that the contractual relationship where there is a loyalty period is usually an unbalanced relationship because it only protects the interest of one party. The penalty clause should not be admitted between parties with unequal bargaining powers. The contractual imbalance is not limited to consumer contracts.

Aplicação das medidas de coacção às pessoas colectivas

1. Legal system of coercive measures and applicability to legal persons: the criminal liability of legal persons, application requirements, fundamental principles; 2. Inapplicability of personal freedom coercive measures to legal persons; 3. Application in the specific case of legal persons: term of identity and residence; provision of security, the obligation of periodic presentation, suspension of exercise of functions, activities and rights, conducts prohibitions and obligations; 4. Break of coercive measure imposed on the legal person.

A intervenção da seguradora nas acções propostas contra o segurado

The problem to be discussed results from the relationship established between the insurer and insured by the conclusion of an insurance contract, namely an optional liability insurance contract, to cover the risks taken by the insured resulting from the occurrence of a claim, such as those arising from the emergence of the liability and consequent obligation to compensate damages caused to a third party. This thesis concerns thus the debate between those who consider that, in the optional insurance, the third party may require compliance with the provision to both the insured and the insurer (in the case of voluntary joinder, pursuant to Art. 27 CCP, which corresponds Art. 32 of the New Code of Civil Procedure, Law n. 41/2013 of 26 June, which entered into force on 1 September, hereinafter New Code) - insurance contract on behalf of a third party conception - in the same way that the insured defendant can bring the insurer to intervene as co-defendant in the main process, pursuant al. a) of art. 325 of the CCP (corresponding to art. 316 of the New Code - main intervention caused), and those who argue that the insurer may only intervene in the action as an ancillary party, to assist the defendant, lacking interest, therefore, in necessary or volunteer joinder, with the consequence that the insurer cannot be sued as a main party - only ancillary intervention is justifiable (cf. art. 330 CPC, which corresponds to art. 321 of the New Code).

A prestação de contas e o regime especial da invalidade das deliberações

The obligation of accountability, or the need to make known the economic and financial state of the companies, ceased to be a purely internal activity, becoming a necessity of a general nature. The knowledge of the financial state of the companies, wich is provided by accountability documents, reveals more and more elementary for all interested in the results obtained, whether in terms of profitability, either with a view to assessing the economic and financial health of the companies. This essay aims to a deeper analysis to matters of accountability, in particular, to the special invalidity scheme of corporate resolutions, wich is enshrined in art. 69º of Portuguese Companies Code. We chose to reference the accrual basis accounts approval, through the analysis of financial statements, laying down a set of principles and criteria applicable to different entities. After consideration of the special scheme versed in art. 69º, we conclude there is a certain ambiguity in the adoption of the criteria do delimit each of the hypotheses of the precept, since the legislator uses indeterminate concepts. Nevertheless, if there is a rule, this will be the annulment, and only exceptionally will apply the nullity scheme, where there is injury to the public interest and the interests of the creditors.