Cinco modelos de adjudicação administrativa (justiça administrativa)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/rinc.v4i1.50154Keywords:
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.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish in this Journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of Constitutional Research the right of first publication with the article simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International which allows sharing the work with recognition of the authors and its initial publication in this Journal.
- Authors are able to take on additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the paper published in this Journal (eg.: publishing in institutional repository or as a book), with a recognition of its initial publication in this Journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish their work online (eg.: in institutional repositories or on their personal website) at any point before or during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as increase the impact and the citation of the published work (see the Effect of Open Access).




















