Por que ter tribunais administrativos?

Autores

  • Peter Cane University of Cambridge

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21056/aec.v17i69.484

Palavras-chave:

justiça administrativa, tribunais administrativos, processo administrativo, legalidade, mérito.

Resumo

Este artigo apresenta o conceito de "justiça administrativa", que ultimamente tem se tornado cada vez mais popular no mundo anglófono da common law. Dessa forma, explora o que tal conceito pode significar quando aplicado aos tribunais administrativos (administrative tribunals). Nos sistemas jurídicos inglês e australiano, os tribunais oferecem alternativas às cortes (courts) para a revisão das decisões administrativas. O artigo centra-se particularmente na Austrália, que tem um sistema altamente desenvolvido de tribunais administrativos, e onde as cortes podem rever as decisões administrativas no que concerne à sua "legalidade", enquanto que os tribunais revisam o mérito dessas decisões. Tal distinção entre legalidade e mérito tem várias implicações para a compreensão de como os tribunais prestam "justiça" e que espécie de justiça é oferecida. Na Austrália, os tribunais são valorizados porque propiciam uma versão particular de justiça administrativa diversa daquela oferecida pelas cortes, o que se reflete em parte na forma pela qual operam os tribunais.

Referências

ADLER, Michael. Fairness in Context. Journal of Law and Society, Wales, v. 33, n. 4, p. 615-638, 2006.

______. Lay Tribunal Members and Administrative Justice. Public Law, [S.l.], p. 616-625, 1999.

______. Tribunal Reform: Proportionate Dispute Resolution and the Pursuit of Administrative Justice. The Modern Law Review, London, v. 69, n. 6, p. 958-985, 2006.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE AND TRIBUNALS COUNCIL. Adjust Newsletter. The Use of Proportionate Dispute Resolution in Tribunals. London, Feb. 2008. Disponível em: < http://bit.ly/2iybdtG >. Acesso em: 7 dez. 2016.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL REPORT Nº 39. Better Decisions: Review of Commonwealth Merits Review Tribunals. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL. Better Decisions: Review of Commonwealth Merits Review Tribunals. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995.

ALLARS, Michal. A General Tribunal Procedure Statute for New South Wales? Public Law Review, [S. l.], v. 4. p. 19, 1993.

AUSTRALIA. COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETIONS. Bland Comittee Report. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1973. Disponível em: < http://bit.ly/2jkHrpF>. Acesso em: 17 jan. 2017.

BACON, R. A Study in Tribunal Amalgamation: The Importance of a Principled Approach. Journal of Social Security Law, London, v. 12, p. 81-, 2005.

BAILEY, Peter. Is Administrative Review Possible Without Legalism? Australian Journal of Administrative Law, Australia, v. 8, n. 4, p. 163-175, 2001.

DEPARTMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS. Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals. London: HMSO, 2004.

DOWNES, G. Alternative Dispute Resolution at the AAT. Australian Journal of Administrative Law, 15, p. 137, 2008.

______. Expert Witnesses in proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The NSW Bar Association Administrative Law Section, Sydney, p. 2, 2006. Disponível em: < http://bit.ly/2jt21q6 >. Acesso em: 14 Agosto 2008.

DWYER, Joan. Fair Play the Inquisitorial Way: A Review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s Use of Inquisitorial Procedures. Australian Journal of Administrative Law, Australia, v. 5, p. 5, 1997.

DWYER, Joan. Overcoming the Adversarial Bias in Tribunal Procedures. Federal Law Review, Australia, 20, p. 252-275, 1991.

FARMER, J. A. A Model Code of Procedure for Administrative Tribunals – An Illusory Concept. New Zealand Universities Law Review, New Zealand, v. 4, 1970.

GENN, Hazel et al. Tribunals for Diverse Users, DCA Research Series 1/06. London: Department for Constitutional Affairs, 2006.

GENN, Hazel and GENN, Y. The Effectiveness of Representation at Tribunals. London: Lord Chancellor’s Department, 1989.

GENN, Hazel. Paths to Justice: What People Do and Think About Going to Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1999.

______. Tribunals and Informal Justice. Modern Law Review, London, v. 56, n. 3, p. 393-411, 1993.

HUMPHREYS, D. Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in the Light of Recent Amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. In: Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators of Australia Conference, 2005, Canberra, 27-29 May 2005, p. 7.

MASHAW, Jerry L. Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1983

______. The Management Side of Due Process. Cornell Law Review, New York, v. 59, n. 5, p. 772, 1974.

PEARCE, Dennis. Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 4th edn. Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2015.

PROSSER, T. Poverty, Ideology and Legality: Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals and Their Predecessors. British Journal of Law and Society, London, v. 4, p. 39-60, 1977.

TAGGART, Michael. The Nature and Functions of the State. In: CANE, Peter and TUSHNET, Mark (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. p. 101-118.

______. The Rationalisation of Administrative Tribunals Procedure: The New Zealand Experience. In: CREYKE. R. (Ed). Administrative Tribunals: Taking Stock. Canberra: Australian Institute of Administrative Law, 1992.

VINCENT-JONES, P. The New Public Contracting: Regulation, Responsiveness and Relationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Decisões judiciais

AUSTRALIA. Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Allan v Development Allowance Authority. Melbourne, 9 set. 1998.

______. ______. Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd v Deputy President Wright (as a Presidential Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal). Brisbane, 2002.

______. ______. Re Hanrahan and Repatriation Commission. Canberra, 2008.

______. ______. Re Liu and Comcare. Sydney, 18 jun. 2004.

______. ______. Re The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Aust) Pty Ltd and Minister for Environment and Heritage (No 2). Sydney, 6 fev. 2007.

AUSTRALIA. Federal Court. Kuswardana v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Sydney, 1 jun. 1981.

AUSTRALIA. High Court. Allan v Transurban City Link Ltd. Canberra, 2001.

______. ______. Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth. Canberra, 1980.

______. ______. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Eshetu. Canberra, 13 Maio 1999.

______. ______. Griffith University v. Tang. Canberra, 2005, 79 ALJR 627; 2005, HCA 7.

Downloads

Publicado

2017-07-01

Edição

Seção

Artigos