Cinco modelos de adjudicação administrativa (justiça administrativa)

Authors

  • Michael Asimow Stanford Law School

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5380/rinc.v4i1.50154

Keywords:

justiça administrativa, jurisdição administrativa, revisão judicial, processo administrativo, Direito comparado.

Abstract

Regimes regulatórios e de distribuição de benefícios ocasionam um grande número de disputas individuais entre agências governamentais e particulares. Cada país precisa de um sistema de adjudicação administrativa para solucionar essas disputas corretamente, com justiça e eficiência. Esses sistemas geralmente compreendem três fases – decisão inicial, reconsideração administrativa e revisão judicial. Entretanto, os detalhes dos vários sistemas empregados ao redor do mundo são impressionantemente diferentes, e muitos países tendem a investir a maior parte dos recursos adjudicatórios em apenas uma dessas três fases (e os particulares que têm uma disputa com o governo tendem a confiar mais em uma das fases do que nas outras duas). Este artigo propõe uma metodologia para a classificação desses sistemas. Ele identifica quatro variáveis importantes: agências com funções combinadas ou tribunals separados; procedimento inquisitório ou adversarial; revisão judicial que pode ser aberta à introdução de novas provas ou fechada a elas; e revisão judicial feita por cortes de competência comum ou especializada. O artigo identifica cinco modelos mais usados ao redor do mundo, que envolvem diferentes combinações dessas variáveis. Os Estados Unidos, por exemplo, utilizam agências com funções combinadas, procedimento adversarial e revisão judicial fechada procedida por cortes de competência comum. Por outro lado, o Reino Unido utiliza um tribunal independente para reconsiderar decisões iniciais das agências. A França utiliza o sistema de revisão judicial aberta efetuada por uma corte especializada. Cada um desses modelos pode oferecer decisões corretas e eficientes, preservando a justiça. Finalmente, o artigo discute transplantes de um sistema de adjudicação administrativa para outro. Existem vários exemplos de transplantes bem sucedidos. O artigo sugere que os Estados Unidos deveriam considerar a adoção de um tribunal para a seguridade social (à semelhança dos tribunals do Reino Unido e da Austrália) para substituir o atual sistema de adjudicação nos litígios envolvendo a seguridade social.

References

ALLARS, Margaret. The Nature of Merits Review: A bold vision realised in the administrative appeals tribunal. Federal Law Review, Canberra, v. 41, n. 2, p. 197-226, 2013.

ASIMOW, Michael; DUNLOP, Lisl. The Many Faces of Administrative Adjudication in the European Union. Administrative Law Review, Washington, v. 61, p. 131-170, 2009.

ASIMOW, Michael; LUBBERS, Jeffrey S. The Merits of “Merits” Review: A Comparative Look at the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, Ontário, v. 28, p. 261-284, 2010. Disponível em: < http://bit.ly/2fC1SeE>. Acesso em: 8 nov. 2016.

ASIMOW, Michael; WOLFE, Jeffrey S. Thinking Outside the APA Box: A New Social Security Tribunal, Administrative & Regulatory Law News, Washington, v. 38. n. 2, p. 3-4, 2013. Disponível em: < http://bit.ly/2ffgxPL>. Acesso em: 9 nov. 2016.

ASIMOW, Michael. The Administrative Judiciary: ALJ’s in Historical Perspective. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, California, v. 20, n. 1, p. 157-165, 2000.

ASIMOW, Michael. The Spreading Umbrella: Extending the APA’s Adjudication Provisions to All Evidentiary Hearings Required by Statute. Administrative Law Review, Washington, v. 56, p. 1003-1008, 2004.

AUBY, Jean-Bernard; CLUZEL-M´ETAYER, Lucie. Administrative Law in France. In: SEERDEN, Réne (Ed.). Administrative Law of The European Union, Its Member States and The United States. 2. ed. Cambridge: Intersentia, 2007. p. 61-92.

BALBIN, Carlos F. Manual de Derecho Administrativo. Buenos Aires: La Ley, 2011.

BARAK-EZER, Daphne; PEREZ, Oren. Whose Administrative Law Is It Anyway? How Global Norms Reshape the Administrative State. Cornell International Law Journal, Nova York, v. 46, n. 3, p. 455-497, 2013. Disponível em: <http://bit.ly/2fmkv73>. Acesso em: 9 nov. 2016.

BIGNAMI, Francesca. Creating European Rights: National Values and Supranational Interests. Columbia Journal of European Law, Nova York, v. 11, p. 241-352, 2005. Disponível em: < http://bit.ly/2fBy95h>. Acesso em 8 nov. 2016.

BIGNAMI, Francesca. From Expert Administration to Accountability Network: A New Paradigm for Comparative Administrative Law. American Journal of Comparative Law, Washington, v. 59, n. 4, p. 859-908, 2011. Disponível em : < http://bit.ly/2fB7khI>. Acesso em: 8 nov. 2016.

BROWN, L. Neville; BELL, John S. French Administrative Law. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 5. ed., 1998.

CRAIG, Paul. EU Administrative Law. 2. ed. Nova York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

CRAIG, Paul. Judicial Review, Appeal and Factual Error. Public Law, Londres, p. 788-807, 2004.

CRAIG, Paul. Perspectives on Process: Common Law, Statutory and Political. Public Law, Londres, n. 2, p. 275-296, 2010. Disponível em: <http://bit.ly/2fBEduX>. Acesso em 8 nov 2016.

CRAMTON, Roger. A Comment on Trial-Type Hearings in Nuclear Power Plant Siting. Virginia Law Review, Charlottesville, v. 58, n. 4, p. 585-599, 1972. Disponível em: < http://bit.ly/2eB6BMu>. Acesso em: 8 nov. 2016.

ELLIOTT, Mark; THOMAS, Robert. Tribunal Justice, Cart, and Proportionate Dispute Resolution. Cambridge Law Journal, Cambridge, v. 71, n. 2, p. 297-324, 2012.

ELLIOTT, Mark. Ombudsmen, Tribunals, Inquiries: Re-Fashioning Accountability Beyond the Courts. Legal Studies Research Papers Series, Cambridge, n. 21, 2012. Disponível em: <http://bit.ly/2fkVPMc>. Acesso em: 8 nov. 2016.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Antitrust: Manual of Procedures. Bruxelas: European Comission Office, 2012. Disponível em: <http://bit.ly/2fAzc7p>. Acesso em: 8 nov. 2016.

GAROUPA, Nuno; OGUS, A.; SANDERS, Andrew. The Investigation and Prosecution of Regulatory Offenses: Is there an Economic Case for Integration. Cambridge Law Journal, Cambridge, v. 70, n. 1, p. 229-259, 2011. Disponível em: <http://bit.ly/2fkYqG0>. Acesso em: 8 nov. 2016.

GIFFORD, Daniel J. Federal Administrative Law Judges: The Relevance of Past Choices to Future Directions. Administrative Law Review, Washington, v. 49, n. 1, p. 4-5, 1997.

GINSBURG, Tom; HOETKER, Glenn. The Unreluctant Litigant? An Empirical Analysis of Japan’s Turn to Litigation. Journal of Legal Studies, Chicago, v. 35, n. 1, p. 31-59, 2006.

GINSBURG, Tom; MASUR, Jonathan S.; McADAMS, Richard H. Libertarian Paternalism, Path Dependence, and Temporary Law. The University of Chicago Law Review, Chicago, v. 81, p. 291-359, 2014. Disponível em: < http://bit.ly/2eDpcrp>. Acesso em: 9 nov. 2016.

GINSBURG, Tom. Confucian Constitucionalism? Globalization and Judicial Review in Korea and Taiwan. Law and Social Inquiry, [S.l.], v. 27, n. 4, p. 763-799, 2002.

GINSBURG, Tom. Dismantling the “Developmental State?” Administrative Procedure Reform in Japan and Korea. The American Journal of Comparative Law, Chicago, v. 49, n. 4, p. 585–625, 2001.

GOLDBACH, Toby S.; BRAKE, Benjamin; KATZENSTEIN, Peter. The Movement of U.S. Criminal and Administrative Law: Processes of Transplanting and Translating. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Bloomington, v. 20, n. 1, p. 141-184, 2013.

HATHAWAY, Oona A. Path Dependence and the Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System. Iowa Law Review, Iowa, v. 86, p. 601-611, 2001. Disponível em: < http://bit.ly/2fCQpgl>. Acesso em: 9 nov. 2016.

HE HAIBO. Litigation Without a Ruling: The Predicament of Administrative Law in China, Tsinghua China Law Review, Pequim, v. 3, p. 257-280, 2011. Disponível em: <http://bit.ly/2fBasKB> . Acesso em: 8 nov. 2016.

HERBERT, Georg. Administrative Justice in Europe—Report for Germany [S.l.: n.d.]. Disponível em: < http://bit.ly/2gIiROb >. Acesso em: 9 nov. 2016.

JORDÃO, Eduardo; ROSE-ACKERMAN, Susan. Judicial Review of Executive Policymaking in Advanced Democracies Beyond Rights Review. Administrative Law Review, Washington, v. 66, n. 1, p. 1-72, 2014.

KINKEL, Jonathan; HURST, William. Review Essay—Access to Justice in Post-Mao China: Assessing the Politics of Criminal and Administrative Law. Journal of East Asian Studies, Cambridge, v. 11, n. 3, p. 467-499, 2011.

MAHBOUBI, Neysun. Suing the Government in China. In: ZHOU, K.; RIGGER, S.; WHITE III, L. (Ed.). Democratization in China, Korea, and Southeast Asia. Londres: Routledge, 2014. p. 141-155.

MASSOT, Jean. The Powers and Duties of the French Administrative Law Judge. In: ROSE-ACKERMAN, Susan ; LINDSETH, Peter (Eds.). Comparative Administrative Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010. p. 415-425.

MINZNER, Carl F. China’s Turn Against Law. American Journal of Comparative Law, [S.l.], vol. 59, p. 935-984, 2011. Disponível em: < http://bit.ly/2fAsG0s> . Acesso em: 8 nov. 2016.

MINZNER, Carl F. Xinfang: Alternative to Formal Chinese Legal Institutions. Stanford Journal International Legal, Stanford, v. 42, p. 103-179, 2006.

NEMPO, Shiho Tokei. [Relatório Anual de Estatísticas Judiciais], tbl.4, [S.l.] 2012. Disponível em Japonês em: <http://www.courts.go.jp/sihotokei/nenpo/pdf/B24DMIN4.pdf>. Acesso em: 11 nov. 2016.

PALMER, Michael. Compromising Courts and Harmonizing Ideologies: Mediation in the Administrative Chambers of the People’s Republic of China In: HARDING, A.; NICHOLSON, P. (Ed.). New Courts in Asia. Londres & Nova York: Routledge, 2010.

PEERENBOOM, Randall. Judicial Independence in China: Common Myths and Unfounded Assumptions. La Trobe Law School Legal Studies Research Paper, Melbourne, nº 11, sept. 2008. Disponível em: < http://bit.ly/2fLYxZW>. Acesso em: 11 nov. 2016.

PEERENBOOM, Randall. Judicial Independence in China: Lessons for Global Rule of Law Promotion. Nova York: Cambrigde University Press, 2010.

RABIN, Robert. Federal Regulation in Historical Perspective. Standford Law Review, Stanford, v. 38, n. 5, p. 1189-1326, 1986.

RAMSEYER, Mark; NAKAZATO, Minoru. Japanese Law: An Economic Approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1999.

SCHRÖDER, Meinhard. Administrative Law in Germany. In: SEERDEN, Réne (Ed.). Administrative Law of The European Union, Its Member States, and The United States. 2. ed. Cambridge: Intersentia, 2007. p. 91-154.

SCHWARTZ, Bernard. French Administrative Law And The Common Law World. New York: New York University Press, 1954.

SINGH, Mahendra P. German Administrative Law in Common Law Perspective. 2. ed., v. 149. Berlin: Springer, 2001.

THOMAS, Robert. Administrative Justice, Better Decisions, and Organizational Learning. Public Law, Londres, p. 111-131, 2015.

THOMAS, Robert. From “Adversarial v. Inquisitorial” to “Active, Enabling, and Investigative”: Developments in UK Administrative Tribunals. In: JACOBS, Laverne; BEGLAY, Sasha (Ed.). The Nature of Inquisitorial Processes in Administrative Regimes. Londres: Routledge, 2013. p. 51-70. Disponível em: <http://bit.ly/2fBVHaj>. Acesso em: 8 nov. 2016.

USHIJIMA, Hitoshi. Administrative Law and Judicialized Governance in Japan. In: GINSBURG, Tom; CHEN, Albert H.Y. (Eds.). Administrative Law And Governance In East Asia. Londres : Routledge, 2009. p. 81-100.

VERKUIL, Paul; GIFFORD, Daniel; KOCH Jr., Charles; PIERCE Jr., Richard; LUBBERS, Jeffrey. The Federal Administrative Judiciary. Administrative Conference of the U.S.: Recommendations and Reports. v. 2. Washington, 1992.

WADE, H. W. R.; FORSYTH, C. F. Administrative Law. 10th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

WEI CUI. Foreign Administrative Law and International Taxation: A Case Study of Treaty Implementation in China. Administrative Law Review, Washington, v. 64, p. 191-233, 2012.

WILS, Wouter P. J. The Role of the Hearing Officer in Competition Proceedings Before the European Commission. World Competition: Law and Economics Review, [S.l.], v. 35, n. 3, p. 431-456, 2012. Disponível em: <http://bit.ly/2fY9c8F> . Acesso em: 8 nov. 2016.

Published

2017-02-16

How to Cite

ASIMOW, Michael. Cinco modelos de adjudicação administrativa (justiça administrativa). Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, [S. l.], v. 4, n. 1, p. 129–165, 2017. DOI: 10.5380/rinc.v4i1.50154. Disponível em: https://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/article/view/50154. Acesso em: 5 dec. 2025.

Issue

Section

Original articles