Anotação sintética, numa perspectiva de Direito Público-penal e Direito Privado-civil, ao Acórdão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça Português, de 19 de Abril de 2012 - A poluição sonora e o direito humano ao descanso e à saúde, sem descurar a necessidade duma adequada política tributária.

Resumo: 1 – Sumário do Acórdão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, de 19 de Abril de 2012; 2 – Texto completo do Acórdão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, de 19 de Abril de 2012: cfr. http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/fc664c231f3e73cf802579ea003d91d2?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,polui%C3%A7%C3%A3o , 2 de Junho de 2012; 3 – Anotação sintética; 3.1 – Introdução à anotação sintética e suas características neste caso concreto; 4 – Algumas referências constitucionais centrais em relação a Direitos humanos e, nomeadamente, a um Direito humano a um meio-ambiente sadio, saudável em todas as suas vertentes e sentidos – o exemplo central do artigo 9.º da CRP; 4.1 – Algumas referências constitucionais centrais em relação a Direitos humanos e, nomeadamente, a um Direito humano a um meio-ambiente sadio, saudável em todas as suas vertentes e sentidos – o exemplo central do artigo 66.º da CRP e o Regime Geral do Ruído; 5 – O direito humano ao descanso e à saúde, rectius o direito ao ambiente sadio vs o direito ao lazer e/ou exploração económica de indústrias de diversão, rectius o direito à liberdade de iniciativa económica privada; 6 – A violação do direito humano, de personalidade, ao descanso e à saúde, rectius o direito a um ambiente sadio, numa perspectiva de Direito privado e Direito civil; 7 – A criminalização da poluição, designadamente a criminalização da poluição sonora – uma perspectiva de Direito público e Direito penal; 8 - A necessidade duma adequada política tributária que compatibilize desenvolvimento sustentado com a protecção dum meio ambiente sadio e com qualidade de vida; 9 – Conclusões. Palavras-chave: Direitos Humanos; Direito constitucional; Direito público; Direito penal; Direito privado; Direito civil; Direito ambiental; meio ambiente sadio; Direito ao descanso; Direito à saúde; Direito ao lazer e/ou exploração económica de indústrias de diversão; direito à liberdade de iniciativa económica privada; Direito tributário; Direito fiscal; Direito aduaneiro. Abstract: 1 - Summary of the Judgment of the Supreme Court of April 19, 2012, 2 - Complete text of the Judgment of the Supreme Court of April 19, 2012: cf. http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/fc664c231f3e73cf802579ea003d91d2?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,polui%C3%A7%C3%A3o , June 2, 2012, 3 - Synthetic Note: 3.1 - Introduction to synthetic annotation and its characteristics in this case 4 - Some references constitutional power over human rights and in particular to a human right to a healthy environment, healthy in all its forms and meanings - the central example of Article 9. of CRP; 4.1 - Some references constitutional power over human rights and in particular to a human right to a healthy environment, healthy in all its forms and meanings - the central example of Article 66. No of CRP and the General Noise; 5 - the human right to rest and health, rectius the right to healthy environment vs. the right to leisure and / or economic exploitation of industries fun, rectius the right to freedom of private economic initiative; 6 - the violation of human personality, to rest and health, rectius the right to a healthy environment, a perspective of private law and civil law; 7 - criminalization of pollution, including the criminalization of noise - a perspective of public law and criminal law; 8 - the need for appropriate tax policy that reconciles sustainable development with the protection of a healthy environment and quality of life; 9 - Conclusions.

Financial and Criminal Responsibility for Public Funds – Protection of the Constitutional Fundamental Social Law of Health

Abstract: The implementation of Fundamental Constitutional Health and Social Rights is necessary, appropriate and proportionate, following the demands of the population. Accountability and self-responsibility play a very important role. This requires the development of constitutional principles that protect public funds against corruption and offer a constitutional right to health protection. Financial and criminal liability might provide an incentive to improve the management of public funds and reinforce fundamental constitutional principles, particularly regarding the right to health. Constitutional, administrative and criminal issues, as well as public management and administration and the science of good governance, should be articulated in a single strategy also in the health sector. In Portugal and Brazil, as examples, the Federal Court / Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court / High Court of Justice or the Court of Auditors should be considered together.

Étude philosophique du renversement juridique canadien concernant l’aide médicale à mourir, à la lumière du débat Hart-Dworkin

Le 6 février 2015, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu un jugement historique, unanime et anonyme. Dans l’arrêt Carter c. Canada (Procureur général), la Cour reconnaît que l’interdiction mur à mur de l’aide médicale à mourir porte atteinte aux droits constitutionnels de certaines personnes. En effet, les adultes capables devraient pouvoir demander l’aide d’un médecin pour mettre fin à leur vie s’ils respectent deux critères : consentir clairement et de façon éclairée à quitter ce monde et être affecté de problèmes de santé graves et irrémédiables leur causant des souffrances persistantes et intolérables. Or, cette décision constitue un renversement juridique, car un jugement inverse avait été rendu en 1993. En effet, vingt-deux ans auparavant, la Cour suprême avait jugé à cinq contre quatre que l’interdiction du suicide assisté était constitutionnelle. Dans l’arrêt Rodriguez c. Colombie-Britannique, la majorité avait statué que la protection du caractère sacré de la vie dans toute circonstance, tant pour les personnes vulnérables que pour les adultes capables, était une raison suffisante pour ne pas accorder de dérogation aux articles du Code criminel qui concernent le suicide assisté. Les juges majoritaires craignent alors que toute ouverture à l’aide au suicide entraine un élargissement progressif des critères d’admissibilité, ce que plusieurs appellent l’argument du « doigt dans l’engrenage ». Dans le cadre de ce mémoire, le renversement juridique Rodriguez-Carter sera analysé à la lumière du débat entre H. L. A. Hart et Ronald Dworkin. Alors que le premier défend une nouvelle version du positivisme modéré, le second offre une théorie nouvelle et innovatrice, nommée l’interprétativisme. L’objectif est simple : déterminer laquelle de ces deux théories explique le mieux le renversement juridique canadien concernant l’aide médicale à mourir. L’hypothèse initiale soutient que les deux théories pourront expliquer ledit renversement, mais que l’une le fera mieux que l’autre.

Workmen's compensation law of the state of Pennsylvania, amendments and supplementary laws ... The rules of procedure of the board, compensation districts, forms and decisions of the courts of Pennsylvania (Supreme, Superior and Common pleas) for the year 1921, together with a digest of the decisions of the courts of 1916-1917-1918-1919-1920. Rehabilitation act of 1919.

Lettered on cover: Pennsylvania. Workmen's compensation law with rules of procedure. Supreme, Superior and Common pleas court decisions. IV. Mackey. 1921.

Practice and procedure : a recent Court of Appeal case examines the meaning of 'third party payer' in terms of Part 3.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007.

In Legal Services Commissioner v Wright [2010] QCA 321 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the first instance decision. The decision involved the construction of “third party payer” in Part 3.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).

District Court of Queensland Act 1968 s 68 : jurisdiction in pre-proceedings applications under Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

In Woolworths Ltd v Graham [2007] QDC 301 Searles DCJ struck out a pre-proceedings application under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)on the basis that the material before the Court was not sufficient to attract the jurisdiction of the District Court.The decision serves more broadly as a reminder that the District Court is an inferior court of defined and limited jurisdiction and that any proceedings brought in it must be demonstrably within the jurisdiction conferred on that court by legislation.