Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito - PPGD/ICJ
URI Permanente desta comunidadehttps://repositorio.ufpa.br/handle/2011/3417
O Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito (PPGD) iniciou suas atividades em 1984 e integra o Instituto de Ciências Jurídicas (ICJ) da Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPA), que, por sua vez, se originou da Faculdade Livre de Direito do Pará, uma das mais antigas do país, fundada em 1902.
Navegar
Navegando Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito - PPGD/ICJ por Assunto "Ação civil pública"
Agora exibindo 1 - 3 de 3
- Resultados por página
- Opções de Ordenação
Item Acesso aberto (Open Access) Legitimidade ativa na ação civil pública: um modelo independente de acesso judicial para a tutela de direitos fundamentais(Universidade Federal do Pará, 2009-08-14) FREITAS, Marlene Rodrigues Medeiros; GÓES, Gisele Santos Fernandes; http://lattes.cnpq.br/1305423832262115The advancement of science and technology in societies in development makes born a diversity of interests whose satisfaction is to be subject to risk prevention and the restoration of damage caused eventually by mass production, environmental pollution, degradation of nature, public services deficit, and others who may to sacrifice the company's present and future generations. The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 guarantees rights and set duties, individuals and collectives, for the realization of the Democratic State of Law, establishing mechanisms and procedures for the judicialization of the collective conflicts and public civil action, governed by the law n.7.347/85 is one of legal instruments of access to Justice with the goal to ensure the protection of fundamental rights can be used by different entities, public and private. Being the Public Ministry the institution which has the power to represent the company and defend the legal order, to its must be ensured sufficient autonomy to pursue the public civil action as a legitimated common. On respect the civil associations representatives of groups and communities in the defense of fundamental rights must be waived the requirement of time defined of its constitution to enter into legal proceedings, as stipulated in Paragraph 4 of art. 5 of these law, because the restriction reduces the scope of the fundamental principle of access to justice. Moreover, should be ensured to the citizen the active title on the public civil action in defense of fundamental social rights, since which is the citizen the representative to demand protection for life worthy of all men.Item Acesso aberto (Open Access) A legitimidade da participação processual na tutela dos direitos difusos(Universidade Federal do Pará, 2007) GATO, Gisele Augusta Fontes; MAROJA, Ângela; http://lattes.cnpq.br/9078629034100575The theoretical approach of the procedural participation is found at a point of intersection between a social-political theory and a legal theory, in order to achieve that it was necessary to initiate from Habermas social theory, proceeding to his political theory and only then to his legal theory. In terms of a discursive theory, the perfection of judicial sentences derives not only from the rationality of the legislation, but also from the reproduction, in the scope of the legal speech, of the conditions of the rational speech, bearing in mind the pragmatic limitations that occur on the legal speech, limitations that arise from the specifics of the legal speech whose main purpose is resolving decision making issues, cannot be developed under the same basis of the ethical speech. Even though the Legal speech is limited by the pragmatic impositions in it, the same way the practical speeches in general, the argument is necessary to the rational justification and the perfection of the sentence, and it is in this aspect that the legal speech connects with the participation, essential for the rational justification and legitimacy of the sentence. Thus, the procedural legislation must be submitted to critics in order to verify if the procedural participation prescribed in the legislation is capable of guaranteeing a legitimate procedure. In our national legislation two situations are not justifiable rationally. First, the one that refers to the current judicial procedure, based in the individual paradigm, insufficient for processing deals formulated based on diffuse rights for they hinder the necessary argument about the legal paradigms and adequate representation that will be presented at court. Second, the restriction to the individual participation in the majority of the procedural actions involving the protection of the diffuse rights, which cannot be rationally justified. Although there is an indicative of change consisting of a first draft of a code of collective process considering legitimate the participation of any member of society. This extension of legitimacy does not apply to all actions that can be used to tutor diffuse interests and rights; the constitutional control was not among the changes. Therefore the discussion over the subject of procedural participation cannot be closed, not even after the promulgation of the code of collective process, due to the importance of the participation of all the interested parties, or of its legitimate representatives, in any judicial procedure where its interests or rights are being questioned. Only by continuing the discussion around the insufficiencies of the judicial procedure in the liberal paradigm for protecting the diffuse rights will we be able to create a rational argument on the subject, whose conclusion represents the victory of the best reasons.Item Acesso aberto (Open Access) Litisconsórcio, efeitos da sentença e coisa julgada na tutela dos interesses metaindividuais(Universidade Federal do Pará, 2001) ROCHA, Ibraim José das Mercês; MATTOS NETO, Antonio José de; http://lattes.cnpq.br/4719479439779242The comprehension of the legal phenomenom as an inclusion sistem is fundamental for the comprehension of the standard approaches wich rule de tutelage of metaindividual interests. So porper 21st century, the main standards to this procedural sistem in Brazil are expressed under the Law 7.347/85 c/c Law 8.078/90 and the necessary interaction with the federal Constitution standards which rule such matter, where the legality model ad causam is granted and public as well as private social entities reflect their nature as a peace making tool to the social conflict. The phenomenon of pluraty of parts in the process of collective tutelage; the highlight to the procedural notion of terceiro is supposed to be essential for the comprehension of such phenomenon, detaching from its construction of material rights relationships that may originate its diverse modalities. The phenomenon of pluraty of parts in the process of collective tutelage; the highlight to the procedural notion of terceiro is supposed to be essential for the comprehension of such phenomenom in a collective tutelage site, which joinder of parties in the highest expression of such phenomenom, detaching from its construction of material rights relationships that may originate its diverse modalities. The respect of constitucional-procedural guarantee of the adversary and the legal defense as fundamental guarantee and right, importante and necessary to social tissue, may and shall be done under social parameters which are more reflexive to the place where special regulations of collective tutelage procedures are inserted, creating the patrio legislador "turns" of respect to its individual prisma, highlighting its social function, expressed in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of article 103 of Law 8.078/90. The efficacy of the decision in a collective tutelage site, for its nature will present repercussions about the interest of terceiros, and, as it is, it is for the tutelage of such individuals, so it is fair to say that they have efficacy ultra partes ou erga omnes, but the erga omnes are distinct from the judge part as well as ultra partes is, as it was thought on Chapter IV on Title III of Law 8.078/90, which only exclude thenselves on the form of "turns" thought of the legislator. No impairment there would be for the collective extension pro et contra of the erga omnes ou ultra partes effect of the judge part on tutelage of any of the metaindividual interests, with no exceptions, because they would not limit in any way the tutelage of the individual interests of mermbers of such collectivities, communites or group of victims, because it was not the aim of the collective procedure. But the caution demanded many "turns" to save such individual interests just in case of impertinence of the collective action, once that, is such a case, it is an only global responsibility of the defendant, being the individual interest in its range of action, it is not of the interest to act to intend a private tutelage as it is extincted in the procedure of collective execution.