scholarly journals Precedentes vinculantes nos Estados Unidos da América e no Direito Brasileiro: um estudo comparado

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrícia Perrone Campos Mello
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Ratio Decidendi ◽  
Obiter Dictum

O artigo desenvolve uma análise comparada sobre o significado e o modo de operar com precedentes judiciais no direito norte-americano (pertencente à família do common law) e no direito brasileiro (de origem romano-germânica), com o propósito de identificar categorias e institutos que auxiliem a compreensão da prática brasileira, a partir de um país com tradição nessa matéria. Com esse objetivo, três aspectos essenciais da operação com precedentes foram analisados e confrontados: (i) o conteúdo vinculante dos precedentes em cada sistema; (ii) o processo colegiado de decisão das cortes constitucionais; e (iii) a diferenciação entre ratio decidendi e obiter dictum. O exame dessas categorias revela que não há perfeita correspondência entre os binding precedents norte-americanos e os precedentes vinculantes brasileiros. O próprio significado de precedente vinculante, no Brasil, encontra-se, ainda, substancialmente indeterminado. Há discussão sobre a eficácia vinculante da ratio decidendi, não se diferencia com precisão ratio decidendi de obiter dictum e o processo decisório da corte constitucional não contribui para o esclarecimento desses elementos. A indeterminação constitui uma ameaça à efetividade da força normativa dos precedentes e indica a necessidade de aperfeiçoamentos institucionais do Judiciário brasileiro e, sobretudo, de um sistema de formação e de incentivos para que os magistrados adiram à prática.

scholarly journals Judicial Consistency dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Penodaan Agama

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 080
Author(s):  
Zaka Firma Aditya
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Prevention Act ◽  
Ratio Decidendi ◽  
The Law ◽  
Prevention Law

Tulisan ini hendak membahas mengenai konsistensi putusan-putusan mahkamah konstitusi dalam pengujian undang-undang berdasarkan asas preseden. MK beberapa kali dipandang tidak konsisten karena kerap mengeluarkan putusan yang bersifat overrulling. Namun, sebenarnya tidak sedikit juga putusan MK yang konsisten mengikuti preseden. Meskipun penggunaan asas preseden hanya dikenal di negara yang menganut tradisi common law, MK ternyata juga menerapkannya. Putusan MK tentang pengujian UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama adalah salah satu bentuk dianutnya asas preseden di MK. Putusan ini secara konsisten menyatakan bahwa UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama tetap konstitusional karena akan terjadi kekosongan hukum apabila UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama diputus inkonstitusional. Dalam perkara tersebut, MK mempertahankan ratio decidendinya terhadap konstitusionalnya UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama karena meskipun MK sadar bahwa UU a quo banyak mengandung kelemahan. Konsistensi standing MK terhadap UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama ini merupakan salah satu bentuk dari dipraktekannya doktrin preseden.This paper will discuss the consistency of the constitutional court decision in the judicial review cases based on the principle of precedent. MK several times deemed inconsistent because often issued a ruling that is overruling. However, there were actually a lot of MK decisions that consistently followed the precedent. Although the use of the precedent principle is only known in common law tradition, the Constitutional Court apparently also applies it. The Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the Blasphemy Prevention Act was one form of the principle of precedent in the Constitutional Court. This decision consistently states that the Blasphemy Prevention Act remains constitutional because a legal vacuum will occur if the Blasphemy Prevention Law was decided to be unconstitutional. In this case, the Court retained its ratio decidendi to the constitutionality of the Blasphemy Prevention Law, even though the Court was aware that the Law contained many weaknesses. The consistency of the Constitutional Court on the judicial review of the Blasphemy Prevention Act is one form of the practice of precedent doctrine.

7. How Precedent Operates: Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum

2019 ◽  
pp. 197-246
Author(s):  
James Holland ◽  
Julian Webb
Keyword(s):  
Uncertainty Principle ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Ratio Decidendi ◽  
Obiter Dictum

The aim of this chapter is to emphasise that legal analysis is not just a question of comparing facts or using a set of balancing scales to see if the facts weigh about the same. The situation is often much more complicated than that. This chapter discusses the following: the development of case law and why cases may be distinguished as well as applied on the material facts; defining ratio decidendi; perception and ratio; ratio and interpretation; obiter dictum; how precedents develop; answering legal questions on precedent; material facts; what can happen to a case; the postal rule cases; and the ‘uncertainty principle’ of cases.

scholarly journals Reserva do plenário e a (in)segurança jurídica: análise da súmula vinculante número 10

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-247
Author(s):  
Giovane Moraes Porto ◽  
Luís Henrique Barbante Franzé
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Law Enforcement Officers ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Original Culture ◽  
Ratio Decidendi ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

No intuito de minimizar a insegurança jurídica e a falta de isonomia trazida pelas decisões judiciais conflitantes sobre a mesma matéria, foi editada a Súmula Vinculante nº 10, que obriga a reserva de plenário mesmo quando o pronunciamento proferido por órgão fracionário de tribunal não reconhecer a inconstitucionalidade da norma expressamente. Mas, esta súmula perderá a sua finalidade se não houver um critério para assegurar que seja aplicada ao mesmo fato que lhe deu origem. Assim, o objetivo desta pesquisa é buscar, na cultura da “common law”, critérios da “ratio decidendi” que gerem maior confiabilidade na aplicação da referida súmula, além de propor uma nova redação. Será usada a pesquisa doutrinária e jurisprudencial, inclusive originária da cultura da “common law”. É esperado chamar atenção dos juristas para a importância do debate sobre a necessidade de maior segurança jurídica e igualdade, notadamente, por meio da aplicação da Súmula Vinculante nº 10. Abstract In order to minimize legal uncertainty and the lack of equality brought about by conflicting court decisions on the same matter was issued Binding Precedent nº 10, which requires the reservation plenum even when the speech given by fractional referring court does not recognize the unconstitutionality of the norm explicitly. But, this summary will lose its purpose if there is no criteria to ensure that it is applied to the same facts that gave rise. The objective of this research is to look at the culture of "common law" criteria "ratio decidendi" that generate greater confidence in applying that precedent, as well as propose a new wording. Doctrinal and jurisprudential research, including original culture of "common law" will be used. It is expected to draw the attention of law enforcement officers to the importance of the debate on the need for greater legal certainty and equality, notably through the implementation of Binding Precedent nº 10.

scholarly journals ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ТА СПЕЦИФІКА ТЛУМАЧЕННЯ І ЗАСТОСУВАННЯ НАЦІОНАЛЬНИМИ СУДАМИ ПОЛОЖЕНЬ ЄКПЛ ТА ПРАКТИКИ ЄСПЛ

2021 ◽  
pp. 284-287
Author(s):  
Анастасія Ярмак ◽  
Дмитро Шарович
Keyword(s):  
Ratio Decidendi ◽  
Obiter Dictum

У даній статті, автори досліджують роль Європейської конвенції з прав людини та практики Європейського суду з прав людини у функціонуванні національного судоустрою. У роботі розкриваються позитивні та негативні аспекти застосування норм Конвенції та практики Суду. Автори досліджують правову природу судових прецедентів, їх структуру (ratio decidendi та obiter dictum) та приклади застосування суддями приписів Конвенції та практики ЄСПЛ у власній правозастосовчій діяльності. Окрім цього, автори висвітлюють певні види правових «дефектів» у вітчизняній судовій діяльності у застосуванні практики ЄСПЛ та норм Конвенції («декларативне», «помилкове» та «маніпулятивне» застосування). Окремо підкреслюється проблема «релевантного» (належного) застосування приписів прецедентів ЄСПЛ. Наприкінці роботи, запропоновані певні способи щодо покращення механізму належного використання Конвенції та практики ЄСПЛ.

DECISION IN CASE House of Lords (all judges agreed with the opinion of Lord Bridge.) Lord Bridge (1) The common law issue That the limitation clause was operative and could effectively limit liability. The wording of the condition was unambiguous in this regard. Limitation clauses do not have to adhere to the strict principles laid down for complete exclusion clauses (see Ailsa Craig (1983)), although they must be clearly expressed and must be strictly interpreted against the party relying on them (contra proferentem). Decision partly supported by the following precedents Photo Production Ltd (1980). Even in cases of fundamental breach, (core) limitation clauses are available to be relied upon by one party. Ailsa Craig (1983). There is a difference of approach appropriate between limitation and exclusion clauses. Limitation clauses do not have to be so strictly interpreted. (2) The statutory issue Even though the clause was enforceable at common law, after considering s 55(4), (5)(a) and (c), Lord Bridge decided that the common law provision was overridden by the statutory obligation in s 55(4) for such clauses to be fair and reasonable otherwise. The clause was therefore unenforceable. The grounds for deciding clause unfair and unreasonable were that: (a) in applying s 55(5)(a), it was clear that in the past appellants had sought to negotiate a settlement that was higher than the price and had not relied on the limitation clause; (b) supply of seed was due to the negligence of appellants sister company; (c) appellant could easily have insured against loss. Obiter dicta (a) The phrase ‘to the extent that’ discussed and said to mean ‘in so far as’ or ‘in the circumstances which’. Section 54(4). Although this is not relevant to this case it is possibly an important obiter dictum. (b) There may be some mileage in discussion concerning whether there can be partial reliance on limitation clauses again. Although this is not relevant to this case, possible important obiter dicta. (c) The phrase ‘in all the circumstances’ in s 55(5) means one should take account of circumstances at and after time of the breach.

2012 ◽  
pp. 116-116
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Complete Exclusion ◽  
The Common ◽  
Obiter Dictum ◽  
Photo Production

4. Sources of Law II: Case Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 85-110
Author(s):  
Mark Thomas ◽  
Claire McGourlay
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Application Of Law ◽  
Ratio Decidendi ◽  
The Common ◽  
Persuasive Effect

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. This chapter focuses on case law, a major source of law providing for the interpretation of statutes and the application of law to particular circumstances. Case law, also known as the common law, is a set of judge-made rules that have either a binding or persuasive effect on future cases. Judge-made means that a member of the judiciary has decided a case in a certain way, which has led to the development of that particular piece of law. Certain courts are obliged to follow previous judgments, whereas other can ignore them due to their seniority. Indeed, the doctrine of precedent denotes a system of case law—binding or not—that a lower court may or may not have to follow. Whether precedent is binding is dependent on whether there is a statement of law, as opposed to fact, certain reasoning for that decision (known as ratio decidendi), and the decision of a superior court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document