A responsabilidade do Estado-Juiz no constitucionalismo contemporâneo

• Ano de defesa: 2008
• Autor(a) principal: Pinheiro, Joriza Magalhães
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Palavras-chave em Português: Estado democrático de direito; Constitucionalismo; Dignidade da pessoa humana; Responsabilidade objetiva; Estado-juiz
• Link de acesso: http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/15708

In the contemporary constitutionalism there is not irresponsible power. The responsibility of the State-judge, as well as of the State for any unfair damage caused to outsider, exists in logical consequence of the political option adopted in the Brazilian Constitution – Democratic State of Law – and of the principle of the human dignity. In consonance with these principles and with those of the interpretation specifically constitutional, it is defended to be applied to the jurisdictional activity, the Article 37, §6º, of the Federal Constitution, which predicts the objective responsibility of the State for the damages caused by its agents in the concession of the public services. This objective responsibility of the State does not depend on guilt or fraud of the public agent, that is, the duty of repairing is not decided through the illegality of the conduct that generates the damage, but through the incidental injustice against the person. This special treatment given to the victim of unfair damage, although causing supplementary onus to the State, it is fully justified through the new legal conscience that comes from the neoconstitutionalism and through the priority to the protection of the human dignity fixed in the Federal Constitution. The objective responsibility of the State-judge, besides guaranteeing its principal function, that is the repair or compensation of the unfair damages caused, for involving a future perspective, stimulates the Public Power to direct all the efforts to avoid the damages inherent to its jurisdictional activity, as well as to assume preventive providences to avoid the costs of the harms that can be caused, as a form to assure an ample access to the judiciary and a fast and efficient jurisdictional concession. In any case, to avoid damages to the public heritage, it is essential that, in the appreciation of the concrete cases, where is discussed the responsibility of the State, we make a cautious investigation about the real existence of the causal link between the conduct of the State and the harmful fact, as well as the incident of guilt of the victim to exclude or to reduce the repair, as well as the presence of the presuppositions of the damage (violation to a right, certainty of the harm) and still, in the hypothesis of damage for legal conduct, abnormality and speciality. To this joint of cautions, is added the consideration in the fixation of the compensatory value.