Ativismo judicial e materialização das políticas públicas infanto-juvenis na constituição da república: Fixação de planos ideais de atuação para os atores do Sistema de Garantia de Direitos (SGD)

The research arose from the necessity of showing ways to be followed by the actors of the System Guaranteeing Rights of the Child and Adolescent (SGD), regarding the implementation of rights for young people, because the legislation in force in Brazil is currently considered a model around the world and, paradoxically, the fundamental rights of children and adolescents are not met, even with the constitutionally guaranteed priority. Thus, the study investigates the fundamentality rights for young people, enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic, as well as the ways of effectiveness of these rights through the actions of actors of the System Guaranteeing Rights, especially the judiciary. Focusing realized, studying theories of fundamental rights, especially Structuring a Theory of Law (Strukturiende Rechtslehre), Friedrich Müller, who emphasizes the need for analysis of social reality in the application of the rule of law. Study also the public budget and public policies concerning children and adolescents, with emphasis on preparation of budget laws and the process of discussion, deliberation, choice and implementation of public policies for children and teenagers. It then presents the typical functions of the members of System Guaranteeing Rights, as well as prepare a plan for optimum performance for each of the actors, with emphasis on analysis of the implementation of public policies at the municipal level. Finally, it analyzes the theory of separation of three powers, and discusses the positive and negative factors for judicial intervention, concluding that the Courts can consider the action activist, from finding the omission of the Executive and legislative branches, as regards the implementation of the rights of children and adolescents, as well as the rights of children and young people are not realized in most cases, due to the omission of actors of the System Guaranteeing Rights

Parâmetros de concretização judicial do direito fundamental à saúde no fornecimento de medicamentos

In Brazil, social rights have always been considered secondary legal categories, whose implementation could wait for the pending of political decisions. At the end of the Second World War, International Law emphasizes the protection of human beings, raising his dignity as a legal pillar of the legal orders and one of the main foundations of Constitutions. At the post-positivism Constitutionalism, the realization of social rights receives special attention with the assumption of supremacy and normativity of the Constitutions, while the judiciary participates in the realization of democracy, not only as applicator of laws, but also as the guardian of constitutionality of the acts and administrative omissions, creatively contributing to the constitutional achievement, filling gaps and normative state omissions. In this aspect, the supply of medicines, whose costs can not be supported by the individual, keep a close connection with the right to life, health and dignity of the human being, as the subject of numerous lawsuits directed against the Public Administration. Such phenomenon has caused intense debate regarding judicial activism and legitimacy of these decisions, particularly on the need to define what are the limits and possibilities considering the principle of separation of powers and the principle of reserve of the possible; bieng this the problematic developed in this research. Thus, this research aims to verify the legitimacy of judicial decisions that determines to the Public Administration the compulsory providing of medicine to those who can not afford the cost of their treatment, as well as, contribute to the dogmatic constructions of parameters to be observed by judicial interference. Regarding the methodology, this research has an investigative and descriptive caracter and an theoretical approach based on bibliographical data collection (judicial and doutrine decisions) that received qualitative treatment and dialectical approach. As a result, it is known that the judicial decision that determines the supply of medicines to those individuals who can not afford them with their own resources is legitimate and complies with the democratic principle, not violating the principle of separation of powers and the reserve of the possible, since the judicial decison is not stripped with an uniform and reasonable criteria, failing to contain high burden of subjectivism and witch signifies a possible exacerbation of functions by the judiciary, suffering, in this case, of requirement of legal certainty. It is concluded that the Court decision that determines the government the providing of medicine to those who can not afford the cost of treatment should be based on parameters such as: the protection of human dignity and the minimum existencial principle, the inafastable jurisdiction principle; compliance critique of the possible reserve principle; subsidiarity of judicial intervention; proportionality (quantitative and qualitative) in the content of the decision; the questioning about the reasons for non-delivery of the drug through administrative via; and, finally, the attention not to turn the judiciary into a mere production factor of the pharmaceutical industry, contributing to the cartelization of the right to health

O ativismo judicial em investida ao Estado democrático

Pós-graduação em Direito - FCHS

A legitimidade democrática do Supremo Tribunal Federal: contribuições para a prática do ativismo judicial

Pós-graduação em Direito - FCHS

Agents, Trustees, and International Courts: Nomination and Appointment of Judicial Candidates in the WTO Appellate Body

Scholars have increasingly theorized, and debated, the decision by states to create and delegate authority to international courts, as well as the subsequent autonomy and behavior of those courts, with principal–agent and trusteeship models disagreeing on the nature and extent of states’ influence on international judges. This article formulates and tests a set of principal–agent hypotheses about the ways in which, and the conditions under which, member states are able use their powers of judicial nomination and appointment to influence the endogenous preferences of international judges. The empirical analysis surveys the record of all judicial appointments to the Appellate Body (AB) of the World Trade Organization over a 15-year period. We present a view of an AB appointment process that, far from representing a pure search for expertise, is deeply politicized and offers member-state principals opportunities to influence AB members ex ante and possibly ex post. We further demonstrate that the AB nomination process has become progressively more politicized over time as member states, responding to earlier and controversial AB decisions, became far more concerned about judicial activism and more interested in the substantive opinions of AB candidates, systematically championing candidates whose views on key issues most closely approached their own, and opposing candidates perceived to be activist or biased against their substantive preferences. Although specific to the WTO, our theory and findings have implications for the judicial politics of a large variety of global and regional international courts and tribunals.

What do you do with a High Court decision you don’t like? Legislative, judicial and academic responses to Gambotto v WCP Ltd

The decision of the High Court of Australia in Gambotto v WCP Ltd wasboth controversial and widely debated. Some saw the decision as radically altering the balance of power in corporate law by granting minority shareholders extensive new powers to prevent the compulsory acquisition of their shares and thereby impeding commercial transactions that would benefit companies. There was also concern that the principles developed by the High Court for compulsory acquisition of shares undertaken by way of amendment of the corporate constitution would apply to other forms of compulsory acquisition, and corporate law more generally, again impeding many types of corporate transactions.We analyse the responses to the High Court decision. The decision had the potential to have a significant influence on Australian corporate law and the way corporate transactions involving compulsory share acquisitions are conducted. In particular, Gambotto was considered in more than 50 subsequent judgments giving many judges the opportunity to extend the Gambotto principles into new areas.We show that the responses to Gambotto were largely negative. Initial commentary in themedia and subsequent academic commentary was mostly critical. Almost uniformly, courts decided that the principles should not be extended.Parliament responded by enacting new provisions in the corporationslegislation facilitating the compulsory acquisition of shares and limiting the application of Gambotto. We document how courts and Parliamentresponded to a decision they did not like — a decision that had the potential to have major implications for corporate law and commercial transactions.We also analyse Gambotto by placing it in the broader political context ofthe role of the High Court at the time of the decision. Gambotto was decided when the High Court was in a period of unprecedented judicial activism.Subsequently, the High Court retreated from this judicial activism and weobserve similarities in how other courts restricted the application ofGambotto.

Legal Reasoning in Context

This study in EU law analyses the reasoning of the Court of Justice (the Court of Justice of the European Union) in a set of its preliminary rulings. Preliminary rulings are answers to national courts questions on the interpretation (and validity) of EU law called preliminary references. These questions concern specific legal issues that have arisen in legal disputes before the national courts. The Court of Justice alone has the ultimate authority to interpret EU law. The preliminary rulings bind the national courts in the cases giving rise to the preliminary reference, and the interpretations of EU law offered in the preliminary rulings are considered generally binding on all instances applying EU law. EU law is often described as a dynamic legal order and the Court of Justice as at the vanguard of developing it. It is generally assumed that the Court of Justice is striving to realise the EU s meta-level purpose (telos): integration. Against this backdrop one can understand the criticism the Court of Justice is often faced with in certain fields of EU law that can be described as developing. This criticism concerns the Court s (negatively) activist way of not just stating the law but developing or even making law. It is difficult to analyse or prove wrong this accusation as it is not in methodological terms clearly established what constitutes judicial activism, or more exactly where the threshold of negative activism lies. Moreover, one popular approach to assessing the role of the Court of Justice described as integration through law has become fairly political, neglecting to take into consideration the special nature of law as both facilitating and constraining action, not merely a medium for furthering integration. This study offers a legal reasoning approach of a more legalist nature, in order to balance the existing mix of approaches to explaining what the Court of Justice does and how. Reliance on legal reasoning is found to offer a working framework for analysis, whereas the tools for an analysis based on activism are found lacking. The legal reasoning approach enables one to assess whether or not the Court of Justice is pertaining to its own established criteria of interpretation of EU law, and if it is not, one should look more in detail at how the interpretation fits with earlier case-law and doctrines of EU law. This study examines the reasoning of the Court of Justice in a set of objectively chosen cases. The emphasis of the study is on analysing how the Court of Justice applies the established criteria of interpretation it has assumed for itself. Moreover, the judgments are assessed not only in terms of reasoning but also for meaningful silences they contain. The analysis is furthermore contextualised by taking into consideration how the cases were commented by legal scholars, their substantive EU law context, and also their larger politico-historical context. In this study, the analysis largely shows that the Court of Justice is interpreting EU law in accordance with its previous practice. Its reasoning retains connection with the linguistic or semiotic criteria of interpretation, while emphasis lies on systemic reasoning. Moreover, although there are a few judgments where the Court of Justice offers clearly dynamic reasoning or what can be considered as substantive reasoning stemming from, for example, common sense or reasonableness, such reasons are most often given in addition to systemic ones. In this sense and even when considered in its broader context, the case-law analysed in this study does not portray a specifically activist image of the Court of Justice. The legal reasoning approach is a valid alternative for explaining how and why the Court of Justice interprets EU law as it does.

Ascensão do judiciário e tensão institucional : judicialização, ativismo e reação do poder legislativo (PEC 33/2011)

Analisa questões sobre a judicialização dos conflitos e o ativismo judicial, bem como aspectos referentes à Proposta de Emenda Constitucional (PEC 33/2011) que visa alterar dispositivos do texto magno a fim de aumentar ou criar o controle do Legislativo sobre algumas das decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal.

Disciplinamento do processo e julgamento do mandado de injunção : uma análise sistemática

Analisa o Projeto de Lei nº 6.002/1990 e apensos, que pretendem disciplinar o processo e julgamento do mandado de injunção individual e coletivo. A abordagem e o desenvolvimento da pesquisa serão realizados no contexto da judicialização da política ou do ativismo judicial, questionando-se qual será a efetividade dos limites/parâmetros impostos ao Supremo Tribunal Federal, acaso o Projeto de Lei nº 6.002/1990 e apensos, se transformem em norma jurídica. Tem-se como hipótese compreender se o pretenso disciplinamento limitará o ativismo judicial que retira o protagonismo do Poder Legislativo e o seu papel preponderante de poder legiferante. Os objetivos específicos da pesquisa são examinar a extensão e os efeitos das decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal no julgamento de alguns mandados de injunção; avaliar se a conduta omissiva do Poder Legislativo causa prejuízos à sua própria imagem e se essa omissão inviabiliza o exercício de direitos, liberdades e prerrogativas constitucionais. A metodologia do trabalho será balizada na análise sistemática dos Mandados de Injunção números 107/1989-DF, 631/2000-MS, 670/2002-ES, 708/2004-DF, 712/2004-PA, 721/2005- DF, 758/2007-DF, 786/2007-DF e 795/2007-DF; na análise do Projeto de Lei nº 6.002/1990 e apensos; na Constituição Federal. O trabalho terá como principais referenciais teóricos e conceituais fontes e bibliografia apropriadas, a exemplo dos doutrinadores Alexandre de Moraes, Cândido Rangel Dinamarco, José Afonso da Silva, José Joaquim Gomes Canotilho,Luís Roberto Barroso e Manoel Gonçalves Ferreira Filho.

Modulação temporal de efeitos: uma abordagem dogmática e dialógica

A presente dissertação objetiva ampliar o tratamento dogmático da modulação temporal dos efeitos da decisão que reconhece a inconstitucionalidade de atos normativos. Busca-se também abordar a perspectiva prospectiva no controle de legalidade e na aferição de juridicidade dos demais atos não normativos praticados no âmbito dos três poderes. Além de abordar os pressupostos teóricos subjacentes à abordagem prospectiva, foram analisados os sistemas de controle de constitucionalidade e os distintos regimes conferidos às situações de invalidade. Promove-se a releitura do tema de forma a reconduzir a modulação dos efeitos temporais à ponderação entre os princípios constitucionais violados pela norma que se pretende declarar inválida e os que tutelam as relações jurídicas que se formaram durante a vigência da norma declarada inválida. Discorre-se particularmente sobre o tema no Brasil, evidenciando-se que a perspectiva prospectiva não se circunscreve apenas ao regramento formal estabelecido pelas normas infraconstitucionais. Por fim, apresenta-se a modulação de efeitos como uma ferramenta valiosa de diálogo institucional, que pode permitir a conciliação dos espaços próprios dos poderes constituídos, temperando um eventual ativismo judicial. Evidencia-se que a modulação temporal de efeitos funciona como ponte entre as teorias empíricas e normativas. Vale-se de abordagens consequencialistas e institucionais sem se descurar da preocupação normativa e dogmática. Permite concomitantemente o debate mais intenso e o diálogo entre os poderes, tudo com o objetivo de se assegurar a concretização dos preceitos constitucionais de uma forma mais harmônica e sistemática.

As sentenças aditivas na jurisdição constitucional

Como o título deixa ver, o trabalho tem como objeto as sentenças aditivas, alvos de uma análise crítica, à luz de pressupostos filosóficos, sociais, políticos e jurídicos. Para isso, fez-se uma visitação à doutrina, nacional e estrangeira, em torno do tema, além de proceder à coleta posicionamentos, emanados das cortes supremas de alguns países expoentes, acerca da matéria em foco. O Supremo Tribunal Federal não poderia ficar como não ficou fora desse universo de pesquisa. O primeiro capítulo trata dos tópicos relativos ao Estado e à Jurisdição, contemplando as relações entre eles para focalizar, com propriedade, a Jurisdição Constitucional. O segundo capítulo traz à discussão a criação judicial do direito e o ativismo judicial, temas correlatos e imprescindíveis ao estudo proposto, porque a sentença aditiva tem, entranhada, uma dose de ativismo judicial. Tem-se, pois, que o criacionismo judicial insere-se nesse contexto e, por isso, carece de uma abordagem descritiva e crítica. O terceiro capítulo versa sobre as cortes constitucionais e o Supremo Tribunal Federal, móveis principais das sentenças aditivas, e que devem ser bem conhecidos para facilitar a digressão do tema-base. O quarto capítulo aborda as decisões no controle de constitucionalidade das normas e seus efeitos, de fundamental importância porque se conectam diretamente com as aditivas. Finalmente, a quinta parte centra-se, no núcleo do tema-objeto da dissertação, contemplando minudências referentes ao assunto, bastante conflituoso ressalte-se , no limite que separa as atribuições de dois Poderes do Estado, o Judiciário e o Legislativo.

Da inconstitucionalidade por omissão ao Estado de coisas inconstitucional

A omissão inconstitucional é um tema desafiador. Este trabalho é dedicado a revisar os pressupostos de sua configuração, buscando explicar a possibilidade de a omissão implicar um estado de coisas inconstitucional. Presente violação massiva de direitos fundamentais decorrente de omissões caracterizadas como falhas estruturais, a Corte Constitucional colombiana declara a vigência de um estado de coisas inconstitucional. Ao assim decidir, a Corte passa a adotar remédios estruturais dirigidos a superar esse quadro negativo. Defendo aqui essa proposta como uma possibilidade para o Brasil e a atuação do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Trata-se, sem dúvida, de exemplo de ativismo judicial em sua dimensão estrutural. Todavia, esse comportamento judicial pode ser legítimo se presentes os pressupostos próprios do estado de coisas inconstitucional e o Tribunal formular decisões flexíveis, determinando a formulação e implementação de políticas públicas, mas deixando aos poderes políticos a tarefa de definir o conteúdo e os meios dessas políticas. O sistema carcerário brasileiro é exemplo de um estado de coisas inconstitucional que requer intervenção judicial da espécie.