Recuperação judicial de empresas: atuação do juiz

Esta dissertação tem como objeto a análise da atuação judicial no âmbito dos processos de recuperação judicial de empresas, regulados pela Lei nº 11.101 de 9 de fevereiro de 2002 (\"LRE\"). No primeiro capítulo, são introduzidas as limitações do trabalho e as principais questões a serem respondidas ao longo do texto. No segundo capítulo, são expostos os panoramas histórico e jurídico da LRE, para que se extraiam os verdadeiros objetivos tutelados pela lei e o diálogo destes objetivos com a atuação do Poder Judiciário. No terceiro capítulo, são propostos três níveis de intervenção judicial no bojo do processo de recuperação, sendo eles: (a) o controle de legalidade estrita, por meio do qual o juiz verificará a observância aos requisitos e vedações impostos pela LRE ao conteúdo do plano de recuperação e à sua votação; (b) o controle de legalidade material ou controle de juridicidade, por meio do qual o juiz avaliará se o conteúdo do plano e sua votação atendem aos princípios gerais orientadores do ordenamento brasileiro; e (c) o juízo de viabilidade, por meio do qual o juiz, usando de critérios objetivos sugeridos pela doutrina, avaliaria o mérito do plano de recuperação judicial para averiguar se, além de atenderem aos critérios de legalidade, as disposições do plano de recuperação atingem os objetivos traçados pela LRE, no sentido de tutela da empresa viável e tutela institucional do crédito. No quarto capítulo, são retomadas as conclusões alcançadas ao final de cada um dos subcapítulos.

Europe’s most wanted? Recalibrating Trust in the European Arrest Warrant System. CEPS Paper Liberty and Security in Europe 55/21 March 2013

This paper assesses the uses and misuses in the application of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system in the European Union. It examines the main quantitative results of this extradition system achieved between 2005 and 2011 on the basis of the existing statistical knowledge on its implementation at EU official levels. The EAW has been anchored in a high level of ‘mutual trust’ between the participating states’ criminal justice regimes and authorities. This reciprocal confidence, however, has been subject to an increasing number of challenges resulting from its practical application, presenting a dual conundrum: 1. Principle of proportionality: Who are the competent judicial authorities cooperating with each other and ensuring that there are sufficient impartial controls over the necessity and proportionality of the decisions on the issuing and execution of EAWs? 2. Principle of division of powers: How can criminal justice authorities be expected to handle different criminal judicial traditions in what is supposed to constitute a ‘serious’ or ‘minor’ crime in their respective legal settings and ‘who’ is ultimately to determine (divorced from political considerations) when is it duly justified to make the EAW system operational? It is argued that the next generation of the EU’s criminal justice cooperation and the EAW need to recognise and acknowledge that the mutual trust premise upon which the European system has been built so far is no longer viable without devising new EU policy stakeholders’ structures and evaluation mechanisms. These should allow for the recalibration of mutual trust and mistrust in EU justice systems in light of the experiences of the criminal justice actors and practitioners having a stake in putting the EAW into daily effect. Such a ‘bottom-up approach’ should be backed up with the best impartial and objective evaluation, an improved system of statistical collection and an independent qualitative assessment of its implementation. This should be placed as the central axis of a renewed EAW framework which should seek to better ensure the accountability, impartial (EU-led) scrutiny and transparency of member states’ application of the EAW in light of the general principles and fundamental rights constituting the foundations of the European system of criminal justice cooperation.

Ten Years of Judicial Cooperation. Occasional Paper 4/2014

This paper intends to illustrate the respective roles and functions of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on the one hand, and the Maltese national courts on the other. It will then define the scope and role of the judicial cooperation between the CJEU and the national courts, highlighting the procedure relating to the preliminary rulings. The paper will then briefly describe the cases brought before the CJEU involving Malta, including those concerning requests for preliminary rulings originating from Malta, and the direct actions by the European Commission before the Court of Justice, as well as those before the General Court. After a description of the rationale behind the publication of the book Malta u l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea (Malta and the Court of Justice of the European Union), and following the conference in which it was presented, the main points that emerged from the conference will serve as a backdrop to some statistical analysis pertaining to the Maltese cases, as well as some reflections on the current situation of the judicial cooperation obtained after ten years. It will propose that, besides a mere statistical analysis of the raw figures that emerge, one must rather address his attention to the spirit of EU membership, and reflect on whether Malta’s legal system has actually absorbed and understood the full meaning of the EU membership, ten years after it took place.

Judicial Selection, Lay Participation, and Judicial Culture in the Czech Republic: A Study in a Central European (Non)Transformation. College of Europe Research Paper in Law 03/2014

Introduction. The idea that “merit” should be the guiding principle of judicial selections is a universal principle, unlikely to be contested in whatever legal system. What differs considerably across legal cultures, however, is the way in which “merit” is defined. For deeper cultural and historical reasons, the current definition of “merit” in the process of judicial selections in the Czech Republic, at least in the way it is implemented in the institutional settings, is an odd mongrel. The old technocratic Austrian judicial heritage has in some aspects merged with, in others was altered or destroyed, by the Communist past. After 1989, some aspects of the judicial organisation were amended, with the most problematic elements removed. Furthermore, several old as well as new provisions relating to the judiciary were struck down by the Constitutional Court. However, apart from these rather haphazard interventions, there has been neither a sustained discussion as to how a new judicial architecture and system of judicial appointments ought to look like nor much of broader, conceptual reform in this regard. Thus, some twenty five years after the Velvet Revolution of 1989, the guiding principles for judicial selection and appointments are still a debate to be had.

Can the new refugee relocation system work? Perils in the Dublin logic and flawed reception conditions in the EU. CEPS Policy Brief No. 332, October 2015 Thursday, 1 October 2015

This Policy Brief argues that the newly adopted EU temporary relocation (quota) system constitutes a welcome yet timid step forward in addressing a number of central controversies of the current refugee debate in Europe. Two main challenges affect the effective operability of the new EU relocation model. First, EU member states’ asylum systems show profound (on-the-ground) weaknesses in reception conditions and judicial/administrative capacities. These prevent a fair and humane processing of asylum applications. EU states are not implementing the common standards enshrined in the EU reception conditions Directive 2013/33. Second, the new relocation system constitutes a move away from the much-criticised Dublin system, but it is still anchored to its premises. The Dublin system is driven by an unfair and unsustainable rule according to which the first EU state of entry is responsible for assessing asylum applications. It does not properly consider the personal, private and family circumstances or the preferences of asylum-seekers. Policy Recommendations In order to respond to these challenges, the Policy Brief offers the following policy recommendations: The EU should strengthen and better enforce member states’ reception capacities, abolish the current Dublin system rule of allocation of responsibility and expand the new relocation distribution criteria to include in the assessment (as far as possible) asylum-seekers’ preferences and personal/family links to EU member states. EU member countries should give priority to boosting their current and forward-looking administrative and judicial capacities to deal and welcome asylum applications. The EU should establish a permanent common European border and asylum service focused on ensuring the highest standards through stable operational support, institutional solidarity across all EU external borders and the practical implementation of new distribution relocation criteria.

An analysis of the impact of ASAP on the traffic safety system.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

An analysis of the impact of ASAP on the traffic safety system.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Oklahoma City ASAP impact on the traffic safety system - analytic study no. IV. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

An analysis of the traffic safety system. 1975. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

An analysis of the impact of ASAP on the traffic safety system. Fourth analytic study.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Analysis of the impact of ASAP on the traffic safety system. Analytical study no. 4. 1973.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

An analysis of the impact of ASAP on the traffic safety system of Fairfax, Virginia - analytic study 4, court procedures: 1976. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

An analysis of the impact of ASAP on the traffic safety system in Columbus, Georgia from January, 1972 - December, 1974. Analytic study 4.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Kansas City ASAP--analytic study 4: impact on the traffic safety system. Final report.

Alcohol Safety Action Project--Kansas City, Mo.

An analysis of the rehabilitation system. Analytic study no. 6.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.