911 resultados para Legislative provision
Resumo:
O Controle judicial das políticas públicas necessárias para a efetivação dos direitos constitucionais sociais à prestação é tema muito polêmico na atividade jurisdicional brasileira. Há os que defendem a intervenção irrestrita na tarefa de impor à administração pública a qualquer custo a efetivação das políticas públicas de sua competência. Contudo o nosso trabalho defende que a intervenção do Poder Judiciário no controle de políticas públicas é possível, segundo comando constitucional contido no artigo 3º da Carta Magna, mas com limitações para evitar a violação do princípio da separação dos poderes. Para demonstrar a nossa concepção sobre o tema partimos da definição e da natureza dos direitos fundamentais sociais e sua concepção na ordem constitucional brasileira. Analisamos as principais funções dos direitos fundamentais, concentrando a nossa atenção na função prestacional, ou direito a prestação em sentido estrito. Nesse particular passamos a discutir as questões que envolvem a efetivação dos direitos fundamentais sociais, a partir de sua eficácia jurídica e social até aos aspectos referentes a sua concretização. Salientamos que a efetivação dos direitos fundamentais sociais “derivados” passa por uma atividade legislativa de conformação antes de sua efetivação e que os “originais” poderiam ser concretizados imediatamente, sem se descurar da necessidade de outra atividade legislativa de destinação dos recurso públicos através da lei orçamentária, na foi ressaltado que deveria ser tomado como um dos critérios para essa destinação o princípio do “mínimo existencial”. Analisamos a tese recorrente de defesa da administração para justificar a não efetivação dos direitos sociais à prestação, a denominada “tese da reserva do possível”, salientamos que embora relevante, não era absoluto esse argumento. Contudo a atuação jurisdicional no controle das políticas públicas, não pode fugir da atenção aos princípios da razoabilidade e da proporcionalidade.
Resumo:
Introduction. The present overview covers the period starting from 2000 until the end of 2005.1 This is the follow-up to our overview covering the 1995-1999 period.2 The first striking feature of the present contribution is that it has to deal with almost 3,5 times as many cases as the previous one. Hence, the ECJ has gone from deciding 40 cases in the five year period between 1995- 1999 to deciding over 140 cases based on Art 49 between 2000-2005. This confirms, beyond any doubt, the tendency already observed in our previous overview, that a “third generation” case law on services is being developed at a very rapid pace by the ECJ. This third generation case law is based on the idea that Article 49 EC is not limited to striking down discriminatory measures but extends to the elimination of all hindrances to the free provision of services. This idea was first expressed in the Tourist Guide cases, the Greek and Dutch TV cases and most importantly in the Säger case.3 It has been confirmed ever since. As was to be expected, this broad brush approach of the Court’s has led to an ever-increasing amount of litigation reaching Luxemburg. It is clear that, if indicators were used to weight the importance of the Court’s case law during the relevant period, services would score much higher than goods, both from a quantitative and from a qualitative perspective.4 Hence, contrary to the previous overview, this one cannot deal in detail with any of the judgments delivered during the reference period. The aim of the present contribution is restricted to presenting the basic trends of the Court’s case law in the field of services Therefore, the analysis follows a fundamentally horizontal approach, fleetingly considering the facts of individual cases, with a view to identifying the conceptual premises of the Court’s approach to the free movement of services. Nonetheless, the substantial solutions adopted by the Court in some key topics, such as concession contracts, healthcare services, posted workers and gambling, are also presented as case studies. In this regard, the analysis is organized in four sections. First we explore the (ever expanding) scope of the freedom to provide services (Section 2), then we go on to identify the nature of the violations and of justifications thereto (Section 3), before carrying out some case studies to concretely illustrate the above (Section 4). Then, for the sake of completeness, we try to deduce the general principles running through the totality of the relevant case law (Section 5). Inevitably, some concluding remarks follow (Section 6).5
Resumo:
No abstract.
Resumo:
Introduction. It is quite uncommon to associate migration with the rules on services trade. Indeed, all economic definitions of services insist on their immaterial nature and on the increased possibility of trading them ‘virtually’ over networks or else, without any physical movement of the parties involved. Somehow this ‘immaterial’ nature of services reflects on their providers/recipients which seem to be ‘invisible’. Even though most services still require the physical contact of the provider with the recipient1 and, when provided over national borders, do entail migration, service providers and/or recipients are rarely thought of as ‘immigrants’. This may be due to the fact that they enter the foreign territory with a specific aim and, once this aim accomplished, move back to their state of origin; technically they only qualify as short term non-cyclical migrants and are of little interest to policy-makers. A second reason may be that both service providers and recipients are economically desirable: the former are typically highly skilled and trained professionals and the latter are well-off ‘visitors’, increasing consumption in the host state. The legal definition of services in Article 57 TFEU (ex Art. 50 EC) further nourishes this idea about service providers/recipients not being migrants: the relevant Treaty rules only apply when the provisions on free movement of workers and freedom of establishment – themselves clearly linked to migration – do not apply. This distinction has been fleshed up by the ECJ which has consistently held that the distinction between the rules on establishment, on the one hand, and the rules on services, on the other, lies on duration.2 Indeed, all EC manuals state four types of service provision falling under the EC Treaty: a) where the service provider moves to the recipient’s state, for a short period of time (longer stay would amount to establishment), b) where the service recipients themselves move to the state where the service is offered (eg for medical care, education, tourism etc), c) where both service providers and recipients move together in another member state (eg a tourist guide accompanying a group travelling abroad) and d) where the service itself is provided across the borders (typically through the use of ICTs). None of these situations would typically qualify as migration. The above ‘dissociation’ between services and migration has been gradually weakened in the recent years. Indeed, migration is increasingly connected to the transnational provision of services. This is the result of three kinds of factors: developments in the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law; legislative initiatives in the EU; and the GATS. Each one of these is considered in some detail below. The aim of the analysis which follows is to show the extent to which (legislative and judicial) policies aimed at the free provision of services actively affect migration conditions within the EU. The EC rules on the provision of services primarily affect the movement of EU nationals. As it will be shown below, however, third country nationals (TCNs) may also claim the benefits of the rules on services, either as recipients thereof or as employees of some EC undertaking which is providing services in another member state (posted workers).