The possibilities of consensual resolution of judicial conflicts with the Public Administration
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional |
Texto Completo: | https://revistaaec.com/index.php/revistaaec/article/view/852 |
Resumo: | This text endeavors to define the theoretical limits of the capacities of the public administrative authorities to reach consensual solutions to disputes within the framework of judicial review. It is motivated by the lack of a clear understanding in Brazilian law of the border area between the legal relations of public and private law involving the public authorities, and the expressions “inalienable right” (or “inalienable interest”) and “public interest” as shown by the inexplicable asymmetry between what the public administrative authorities can do within a judicial proceeding and outside one. Based on a comparative study of common law versus civil law legal systems and an examination of the treatment of the subject in Brazilian statutes, case law and legal studies, this article reviews the relationship between the public interest and inalienability, demonstrating, in conclusion, that the possibility of the administrative authorities to enter into settlements or follow similar practices should not be rejected a priori, even in cases of public law. According to the author, there are three possible scenarios in which public administrative authorities may resort to consensual dispute resolution in the context of the judicial review: in private-law relationships, in public-law relationships with respect to the exercise of administrative actions prescribed by law and public-law relationships with respect to the exercise of discretionary powers. |
id |
ED-FO-1_a74715d19735435286934e9dd6bbd9ef |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.revistaaec.com:article/852 |
network_acronym_str |
ED-FO-1 |
network_name_str |
A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
The possibilities of consensual resolution of judicial conflicts with the Public Administrationfair trialjudicial reviewpublic interestconsensual dispute resolutionadministrative authorityThis text endeavors to define the theoretical limits of the capacities of the public administrative authorities to reach consensual solutions to disputes within the framework of judicial review. It is motivated by the lack of a clear understanding in Brazilian law of the border area between the legal relations of public and private law involving the public authorities, and the expressions “inalienable right” (or “inalienable interest”) and “public interest” as shown by the inexplicable asymmetry between what the public administrative authorities can do within a judicial proceeding and outside one. Based on a comparative study of common law versus civil law legal systems and an examination of the treatment of the subject in Brazilian statutes, case law and legal studies, this article reviews the relationship between the public interest and inalienability, demonstrating, in conclusion, that the possibility of the administrative authorities to enter into settlements or follow similar practices should not be rejected a priori, even in cases of public law. According to the author, there are three possible scenarios in which public administrative authorities may resort to consensual dispute resolution in the context of the judicial review: in private-law relationships, in public-law relationships with respect to the exercise of administrative actions prescribed by law and public-law relationships with respect to the exercise of discretionary powers.Instituto de Direito Romeu Felipe Bacellar2018-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://revistaaec.com/index.php/revistaaec/article/view/85210.21056/aec.v18i72.852A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional; Vol. 18 No. 72 (2018): April/June; 31-50A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional; Vol. 18 Núm. 72 (2018): abril/junio; 31-50A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional; v. 18 n. 72 (2018): abril/junho; 31-501516-321010.21056/aec.v18i72reponame:A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucionalinstname:Editora Fóruminstacron:ED-FOenghttps://revistaaec.com/index.php/revistaaec/article/view/852/868Copyright (c) 2018 Gabriel Perlingeiroinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPerlingeiro, Gabriel2021-02-25T20:18:21Zoai:ojs.revistaaec.com:article/852Revistahttp://www.revistaaec.com/index.php/revistaaec/indexPRIhttp://www.revistaaec.com/index.php/revistaaec/oaiaec.revista@gmail.com1516-32101984-4182opendoar:2021-02-25T20:18:21A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional - Editora Fórumfalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The possibilities of consensual resolution of judicial conflicts with the Public Administration |
title |
The possibilities of consensual resolution of judicial conflicts with the Public Administration |
spellingShingle |
The possibilities of consensual resolution of judicial conflicts with the Public Administration Perlingeiro, Gabriel fair trial judicial review public interest consensual dispute resolution administrative authority |
title_short |
The possibilities of consensual resolution of judicial conflicts with the Public Administration |
title_full |
The possibilities of consensual resolution of judicial conflicts with the Public Administration |
title_fullStr |
The possibilities of consensual resolution of judicial conflicts with the Public Administration |
title_full_unstemmed |
The possibilities of consensual resolution of judicial conflicts with the Public Administration |
title_sort |
The possibilities of consensual resolution of judicial conflicts with the Public Administration |
author |
Perlingeiro, Gabriel |
author_facet |
Perlingeiro, Gabriel |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Perlingeiro, Gabriel |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
fair trial judicial review public interest consensual dispute resolution administrative authority |
topic |
fair trial judicial review public interest consensual dispute resolution administrative authority |
description |
This text endeavors to define the theoretical limits of the capacities of the public administrative authorities to reach consensual solutions to disputes within the framework of judicial review. It is motivated by the lack of a clear understanding in Brazilian law of the border area between the legal relations of public and private law involving the public authorities, and the expressions “inalienable right” (or “inalienable interest”) and “public interest” as shown by the inexplicable asymmetry between what the public administrative authorities can do within a judicial proceeding and outside one. Based on a comparative study of common law versus civil law legal systems and an examination of the treatment of the subject in Brazilian statutes, case law and legal studies, this article reviews the relationship between the public interest and inalienability, demonstrating, in conclusion, that the possibility of the administrative authorities to enter into settlements or follow similar practices should not be rejected a priori, even in cases of public law. According to the author, there are three possible scenarios in which public administrative authorities may resort to consensual dispute resolution in the context of the judicial review: in private-law relationships, in public-law relationships with respect to the exercise of administrative actions prescribed by law and public-law relationships with respect to the exercise of discretionary powers. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-04-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://revistaaec.com/index.php/revistaaec/article/view/852 10.21056/aec.v18i72.852 |
url |
https://revistaaec.com/index.php/revistaaec/article/view/852 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.21056/aec.v18i72.852 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistaaec.com/index.php/revistaaec/article/view/852/868 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Gabriel Perlingeiro info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Gabriel Perlingeiro |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto de Direito Romeu Felipe Bacellar |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto de Direito Romeu Felipe Bacellar |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional; Vol. 18 No. 72 (2018): April/June; 31-50 A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional; Vol. 18 Núm. 72 (2018): abril/junio; 31-50 A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional; v. 18 n. 72 (2018): abril/junho; 31-50 1516-3210 10.21056/aec.v18i72 reponame:A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional instname:Editora Fórum instacron:ED-FO |
instname_str |
Editora Fórum |
instacron_str |
ED-FO |
institution |
ED-FO |
reponame_str |
A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional |
collection |
A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional - Editora Fórum |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
aec.revista@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1798313433819512832 |