El derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva: una aproximación a su aplicación por los tribunales ecuatorianos (Tema Central)

Este artículo analiza la concepción del derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva como derecho fundamental, para lo cual parte de sus notas configuradoras básicas. Al efecto, se estudian sus implicaciones desde el ámbito constitucional y del Código Orgánico de la Función Judicial, como sus líneas directrices en la doctrina y en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional español (órgano que ha estudiado ampliamente el tema), para luego determinar cómo se ha considerado el ámbito del derecho por los tribunales ecuatorianos.

A TV digital brasileira a serviço do processo judicial eletrônico: o ambiente da interatividade da TV digital brasileira como proposta para um modelo na gravação de audiência das varas federais criminais

Este trabalho descreve algumas das soluções atualmente adotadas pelos tribunais federais para a gravação de audiência, bem como indica a oportunidade que o ambiente de interatividade da TV Digital Brasileira oferece para uma proposta de modelo de documento eletrônico de escritório que sirva de suporte para o resultado da gravação de audiência (texto, som e imagem), bem como possa contribuir para a mudança de paradigma dos atuais sistemas processuais (softwares). O objetivo é estabelecer um padrão fundamentado em uma política pública (Governo Eletrônico Brasileiro e Sistema Brasileiro de TV Digital Terrestre), onde não existam restrições comerciais quanto ao uso das novas tecnologias de comunicação e informação no que se refere ao mínimo para se privilegiar a inclusão social sem perda de eficiência. O trabalho é formado por dois tipos de conteúdo: parte textual e parte digital. A parte textual contém o resultado de uma pesquisa realizada junto aos tribunais federais, bem como apresenta os principais pontos do Governo Eletrônico Brasileiro e do Sistema Brasileiro de TV Digital Terrestre. Ainda descreve a estrutura montada na elaboração e realização da parte digital. Por sua vez, a parte digital reúne o material utilizado para a apresentação de protótipos (vídeos e exemplos de aplicações), para demonstrar as possibilidades de interatividade da TV Digital Brasileira e dos benefícios que os jurisdicionados e os operadores do Direito alcançariam com a proposta. Palavras-

A gestão em vara judicial sob a visão do juiz pro ativo

O modelo de gestão inovador mostrou que é possível fazer um ambiente de excelência onde o Poder Judiciário seja reconhecido, respeitado e confiável aos jurisdicionados, na medida em que se assegura uma prestação jurisdicional efetiva num espaço de tempo razoável, garantindo legitimidade e credibilidade às suas decisões, sob a visão de um juiz proativo, com objetivos estratégicos pré-definidos, sob um olhar idealizador, uma equipe integrada, motivada e comprometida. O modelo de gestão inovador foi experimentado na Vara do Juizado Especial Cível da Comarca de Jaru, no Estado de Rondônia, onde se procurou conferir uma rotina lógico-jurídica ao fluxo processual, sem prejuízo da qualidade, e em com total harmonia aos postulados normativos do Juizado Especial Cível e as regras constitucionais prescritas.

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

As súmulas vinculantes no Brasil e a necessidade de limites ao ativismo judicial

O Autor aborda que, a partir do fortalecimento da jurisdição constitucional, Constituição/1988, novas técnicas interpretativas serão permitidas, no intuito de ampliar a atuação jurisdicional em assuntos tradicionalmente de alçada dos Poderes Legislativo e Executivo.

The Constitutional-Judicial Control of the Legislative and Executive Powers in Central and Eastern European Countries

This project looked at the nature, contents, methods, means and legal and political effects of the influence that constitutional courts exercise upon the legislative and executive powers in the newly established democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. The basic hypothesis was that these courts work to provide a limitation of political power within the framework of the principal constitutional values and that they force the legislature and executive to exercise their powers and duties in strict accordance with the constitution. Following a study of the documentary sources, including primarily the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions and decisions of constitutional courts, Mr. Cvetkovski prepared a questionnaire on various aspects of the topics researched and sent it to the respective constitutional courts. A series of direct interviews with court officials in six of the ten countries then served to clarify a large number of questions relating to differences in procedures etc. that arose from the questionnaires. As a final stage, the findings were compared with those described in recent publications on constitutional control in general and in Central and Eastern Europe in particular. The study began by considering the constitutional and political environment of the constitutional courts' activities in controlling legislative and executive powers, which in all countries studied are based on the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers. All courts are separate bodies with special status in terms of constitutional law and are independent of other political and judicial institutions. The range of matters within their jurisdiction is set by the constitution of the country in question but in all cases can be exercised only with the framework of procedural rules. This gives considerable significance to the question of who sets these rules and different countries have dealt with it in different ways. In some there is a special constitutional law with the same legal force as the constitution itself (Croatia), the majority of countries allow for regulation by an ordinary law, Macedonia gives the court the autonomy to create and change its own rules of procedure, while in Hungary the parliament fixes the rules on procedure at the suggestion of the constitutional court. The question of the appointment of constitutional judges was also considered and of the mechanisms for ensuring their impartiality and immunity. In the area of the courts' scope for providing normative control, considerable differences were found between the different countries. In some cases the courts' jurisdiction is limited to the normative acts of the respective parliaments, and there is generally no provision for challenging unconstitutional omissions by legislation and the executive. There are, however, some situations in which they may indirectly evaluate the constitutionality of legislative omissions, as when the constitution contains provision for a time limit on enacting legislation, when the parliament has made an omission in drafting a law which violates the constitutional provisions, or when a law grants favours to certain groups while excluding others, thereby violating the equal protection clause of the constitution. The control of constitutionality of normative acts can be either preventive or repressive, depending on whether it is implemented before or after the promulgation of the law or other enactment being challenged. In most countries in the region the constitutional courts provide only repressive control, although in Hungary and Poland the courts are competent to perform both preventive and repressive norm control, while in Romania the court's jurisdiction is limited to preventive norm control. Most countries are wary of vesting constitutional courts with preventive norm control because of the danger of their becoming too involved in the day-to-day political debate, but Mr. Cvetkovski points out certain advantages of such control. If combined with a short time limit it can provide early clarification of a constitutional issue, secondly it avoids the problems arising if a law that has been in force for some years is declared to be unconstitutional, and thirdly it may help preserve the prestige of the legislation. Its disadvantages include the difficulty of ascertaining the actual and potential consequences of a norm without the empirical experience of the administration and enforcement of the law, the desirability of a certain distance from the day-to-day arguments surrounding the political process of legislation, the possible effects of changing social and economic conditions, and the danger of placing obstacles in the way of rapid reactions to acute situations. In the case of repressive norm control, this can be either abstract or concrete. The former is initiated by the supreme state organs in order to protect abstract constitutional order and the latter is initiated by ordinary courts, administrative authorities or by individuals. Constitutional courts cannot directly oblige the legislature and executive to pass a new law and this remains a matter of legislative and executive political responsibility. In the case of Poland, the parliament even has the power to dismiss a constitutional court decision by a special majority of votes, which means that the last word lies with the legislature. As the current constitutions of Central and Eastern European countries are newly adopted and differ significantly from the previous ones, the courts' interpretative functions should ensure a degree of unification in the application of the constitution. Some countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Russia) provide for the constitutional courts' decisions to have a binding role on the constitutions. While their decisions inevitably have an influence on the actions of public bodies, they do not set criteria for political behaviour, which depends rather on the overall political culture and traditions of the society. All constitutions except that of Belarus, provide for the courts to have jurisdiction over conflicts arising from the distribution of responsibilities between different organs and levels in the country, as well for impeachment procedures against the head of state, and for determining the constitutionality of political parties (except in Belarus, Hungary, Russia and Slovakia). All the constitutions studied guarantee individual rights and freedoms and most courts have jurisdiction over complaints of violation of these rights by the constitution. All courts also have some jurisdiction over international agreements and treaties, either directly (Belarus, Bulgaria and Hungary) before the treaty is ratified, or indirectly (Croatia, Czech Republic, Macedonia, Romania, Russia and Yugoslavia). In each country the question of who may initiate proceedings of norm control is of central importance and is usually regulated by the constitution itself. There are three main possibilities: statutory organs, normal courts and private individuals and the limitations on each of these is discussed in the report. Most courts are limited in their rights to institute ex officio a full-scale review of a point of law, and such rights as they do have rarely been used. In most countries courts' decisions do not have any binding force but must be approved by parliament or impose on parliament the obligation to bring the relevant law into conformity within a certain period. As a result, the courts' position is generally weaker than in other countries in Europe, with parliament remaining the supreme body. In the case of preventive norm control a finding of unconstitutionality may act to suspend the law and or to refer it back to the legislature, where in countries such as Romania it may even be overturned by a two-thirds majority. In repressive norm control a finding of unconstitutionality generally serves to take the relevant law out of legal force from the day of publication of the decision or from another date fixed by the court. If the law is annulled retrospectively this may or may not bring decisions of criminal courts under review, depending on the provisions laid down in the relevant constitution. In cases relating to conflicts of competencies the courts' decisions tend to be declaratory and so have a binding effect inter partes. In the case of a review of an individual act, decisions generally become effective primarily inter partes but is the individual act has been based on an unconstitutional generally binding normative act of the legislature or executive, the findings has quasi-legal effect as it automatically initiates special proceedings in which the law or other regulation is to be annulled or abrogated with effect erga omnes. This wards off further application of the law and thus further violations of individual constitutional rights, but also discourages further constitutional complaints against the same law. Thus the success of one individual's complaint extends to everyone else whose rights have equally been or might have been violated by the respective law. As the body whose act is repealed is obliged to adopt another act and in doing so is bound by the legal position of the constitutional court on the violation of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and rights of the complainant, in this situation the decision of the constitutional court has the force of a precedent.

Constitutional restraints upon the judiciary : hearings before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, first session, oversight hearings to define the scope of the Senate's authority under Article III of the Constitution to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts, May 20, 21, and June 22, 1981.

Mode of access: Internet.

Imagens da imparcialidade entre o discurso constitucional e a prática judicial

Tese (doutorado)—Universidade de Brasília, Faculdade de Direito, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito, 2016.

Organization and jurisdiction of the courts of South Carolina

This study is designed to give a brief presentation of the judicial structure of South Carolina without going into the matters of procedure. The text of the study describes the manner of selection of the judges and the jurisdiction of each court. The accompanying chart attempts to show the different types and levels of courts in the state system and the chain of appeals from lower to higher courts.

Contemporary issues in Australian family law: Do we need a more unified and interventionist judicial model

Recent decisions of the Family Court of Australian reflect concerns over the adversarial nature of the legal process. The processes and procedures of the judicial system militate against a detailed examination of the issues and rights of the parties in dispute. The limitations of the family law framework are particularly demonstrated in disputes over the custody of children where the Court has tended to neglect the rights and interests of the primary carer. An alternative "unified family court" framework will be examined in which the Court pursues a more active and interventionist approach in the determination of family law disputes.

Regulating Multi-National Corporations Through State-Based Laws : Problems with Enforcing Human Rights Under The Alien Tort Statute

Under the Alien Tort Statute United States of America (“America”) Federal Courts have the jurisdiction to hear claims for civil wrongs, committed against non-American citizens, which were perpetrated outside America’s national borders. The operation of this law has confronted American Federal Courts with difficulties on how to manage conflicts between American executive foreign policy and judicial interpretations of international law. Courts began to pass judgment over conduct which was approved by foreign governments. Then in 2005 the American Supreme Court wound back the scope of the Alien Tort Statute. This article will review the problems with the expansion of the Alien Tort Statute and the reasons for its subsequent narrowing.