Da responsabilidade civil extracontratual da administra??o p?blica brasileira devido a omiss?es : entre o monarca irrespons?vel e o estado segurador universal ? crit?rios objetivos de fixa??o da responsabilidade estatal

• Main Author: Sodr?, Jorge Iraj? Louro
• Other Authors: Facchini Neto, Eug?nio
• Format: Others
• Language: Portuguese
• Published: Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do Sul 2018
• Subjects: Administra??o P?blica; Responsabilidade Civil; Omiss?o; Dignidade Humana; Efici?ncia; Servi?o P?blico; Nexo de Causalidade; Razoabilidade; CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
• Online Access: http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/7878

Submitted by PPG Direito ([e-mail]) on 2018-03-06T20:40:42Z No. of bitstreams: 1 JORGE_IRAJ?_LOURO_SODR?.TES.pdf: 2303925 bytes, checksum: 7aee5985829a5356c65262bf31d23555 (MD5) === Rejected by Caroline Xavier ([e-mail]), reason: Devolvido devido ? falta de capa institucional no arquivo PDF. on 2018-03-07T14:29:49Z (GMT) === Submitted by PPG Direito ([e-mail]) on 2018-03-07T19:25:04Z No. of bitstreams: 1 JORGE_IRAJ?_LOURO_SODR?_TES.pdf: 2646844 bytes, checksum: 7ac86dd6ac32be1f2ad5ca7755323b70 (MD5) === Approved for entry into archive by Caroline Xavier ([e-mail]) on 2018-03-08T17:22:40Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 JORGE_IRAJ?_LOURO_SODR?_TES.pdf: 2646844 bytes, checksum: 7ac86dd6ac32be1f2ad5ca7755323b70 (MD5) === Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-08T17:26:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 JORGE_IRAJ?_LOURO_SODR?_TES.pdf: 2646844 bytes, checksum: 7ac86dd6ac32be1f2ad5ca7755323b70 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-12-21 === Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES === The non-contractual civil liability of the Brazilian Public Administration is informed by legal provision that attributes objective nature to it, where the legal people under domestic public law are civilly liable for the damages cause by their employees, as such, to third parties. However, since that time, doctrine and majority jurisprudence do not admit an objective public liability when the damage occurs due to a negative behavior of the Public Administration. Based on the article 15 of the Civil Code of 1916, they affirm that public liability for omission should be read subjectively, through the French theory of faute de service, whose responsibility is given when the service has not worked, or has functioned in a deficient way, or inopportunely, even admitting the anonymous fault of the Public Administration. Nevertheless, considering the constitutional maintenance of objective public liability and the validity of the Civil Code of 2002, whose rule of attribution of the liability of the State says it is objective, through a hypothetical-deductive analysis of national and foreign doctrine and jurisprudence, it was perceived that resistance to the objectification of public liability also occurs, in cases of administrative omissions, due to ideological and non-theoretical reasons, because (i) the faute de service, even in France, has its reading objectified, (ii) the investigated national jurisprudence, when judging damaging positive state behavior, motivates its judgments into the malfunctioning of the public service, not revealing that it is applying the theory of faute de service, (iii) this same jurisprudence, when analyzing administrative omissions, does it through objective criteria, and (iv) the Constitution does not make any distinction of factors of attribution of public liability. For this reason, it is concluded that rather than transplanting an alien institute, it is possible to assert a public liability for omissions in an objective way, giving the essential prevalence to the causal nexus, through the appropriate causality theory, allowing a retrospective judgment of probability, under the lights of the informative principles of Public Administration, especially those of reasonableness and efficiency, in the implementation of good public administration, the inherent obligation of the public authorities to promote the fundamental rights of people, fostering their dignity in a way that administrative actions harmonize criteria of objectivity, impartiality, justice and equity, which are provided within reasonable time, making possible the free and solidary development of each person in their society. Reasonableness requires the existence of a certain equivalence relation between the adopted measure and criteria that dimensions it, connecting the searched purpose to the means to be used with the examination of this adequacy in abstract, general and antecedent way. The efficiency in offering the concrete utilities to the citizen, in the combination of equity and efficiency of the public service, through a concerted, encouraging and negotiated action in the realization of fundamental rights. === La responsabilit? civile non contractuelle de l?Administration Publique br?silienne est inform? par dispositif l?gal qui lui attribue caract?re objectif, dans laquelle les personne morale de droit public interne sont civilement responsables pour les dommages que ses fonctionnaires, dans cette qualit?, causent ? tiers. Toutefois, depuis ce temps, la doctrine et la jurisprudence majoritaire n?admettent pas une responsabilit? publique objective lorsque les dommages surviennent par le comportement n?gatif de l?Administration Publique. Sous l?article 15 du Code Civil de 1916, ils pr?tendent que la responsabilit? publique par omission doit ?tre lue de mani?re subjective, par la th?orie fran?aise de la faute de service, dont la responsabilit? est occasionn?e quand le service n?a pas fonctionn? ou a fonctionn? de mani?re d?ficiente, ou intempestivement, en admettant m?me la culpabilit? anonyme de l?Administration Publique. N?anmoins, en ayant vue du maintien constitutionnel de la responsabilit? publique objective et de la validit? du Code Civil de 2002, dont la r?gle d?imputation de la responsabilit? de l??tat lui dit objectif, par une analyse hypoth?tiqued?ductive de la doctrine et de la jurisprudence nationales et ?trangers, il a ?t? constat? que la r?sistance ? l?objectivation de la responsabilit? publique aussi occasionne, en cas d?omissions administratives, par questions id?ologiques et non th?oriques, parce que (I) la faute de service, m?me en France, a sa lecture objective, (II) la jurisprudence national recherch?, lorsque le jugement des comportements ?tatique positifs nuisibles, motive ses jugements dans le dysfonctionnement du service public, sans dire qu?il applique la th?orie de faute de service, (III) cette m?me jurisprudence, lors de l?analyse des omissions administratives, elle fait avec des crit?res objectifs, et (IV) la Constitution ne fait pas la distinction entre les facteurs d?attribution de la responsabilit? publique. Pour cette raison, il est conclu que, mieux que la transplantation d?un institut ?tranger, il est possible d?affirmer une responsabilit? publique pour les omissions d?une mani?re objective, en donnant la pr?valence essentielle au lien de causalit?, par la th?orie de causalit? appropri?e, permettant une jugement r?trospectif de probabilit?, sous la lumi?re des principes informateurs de l?Administration Publique, en particulier ceux du caract?re raisonnable et de l?efficience, dans la r?alisation d?une bonne administration publique, obligation inh?rente aux pouvoirs publics de promouvoir les droits fondamentaux de personnes, en favorisant leur dignit? de telle sorte que les actions administratives harmonisent les crit?res d?objectivit?, d?impartialit?, de justice et d??quit?, et qui sont rendus dans un d?lai raisonnable, permettant le d?veloppement libre et solidaire de chaque personne dans sa soci?t?. Le caract?re raisonnable exige l?existence d?un certain relation d??quivalence entre la mesure adopt?e et le crit?re qui l??chelle, en donnant le lien de la fin qui est demand?e et les moyens qu?elle utilise avec l?examen de cette ad?quation sous une forme abstraite, g?n?rale et ant?c?dente. L?efficacit? de l?offre de services publics concrets au citoyen, conjointement avec l??quit? et l?efficience de la fonction publique, par le biais de concertation, de promotion, de n?gociation, dans la r?alisation des droits fondamentaux. === A responsabilidade civil extracontratual da Administra??o P?blica brasileira ? informada por dispositivo legal que lhe atribui natureza objetiva, onde as pessoas jur?dicas de direito p?blico interno s?o civilmente respons?veis pelos danos que os seus funcion?rios, nessa qualidade, causem a terceiros. Contudo, desde aquela ?poca, a doutrina e jurisprud?ncia majorit?ria n?o admitem uma responsabilidade p?blica objetiva quando o dano ocorre por um comportamento negativo da Administra??o P?blica. Sob o fundamento do artigo 15 do C?digo Civil de 1916, afirmam que a responsabilidade p?blica por omiss?o deve ser lida de forma subjetiva, mediante a teoria francesa da faute de service, cuja responsabilidade d?-se quando o servi?o n?o funcionou, ou funcionou de forma deficiente, ou intempestivamente, admitindo-se inclusive a culpa an?nima da Administra??o P?blica. N?o obstante, tendo em vista a manten?a constitucional da responsabilidade p?blica objetiva e a vig?ncia do C?digo Civil de 2002, cuja regra de imputa??o da responsabilidade do Estado a diz objetiva, mediante an?lise hipot?tico-dedutiva da doutrina e jurisprud?ncia nacional e estrangeira, percebeu-se que a resist?ncia ? objetiva??o da responsabilidade p?blica tamb?m ocorre, nos casos de omiss?es administrativas, por quest?es ideol?gicas e n?o te?ricas, pois (i) a faute de service, inclusive na Fran?a, tem sua leitura objetivada, (ii) a jurisprud?ncia nacional pesquisada, quando do julgamento de comportamentos estatais positivos danosos, motiva seus ac?rd?os no mau funcionamento do servi?o p?blico, sem dizer que est? aplicando a teoria da faute de service, (iii) essa mesma jurisprud?ncia, quando analisa as omiss?es administrativas, o faz mediante crit?rios objetivos, e (iv) a Constitui??o n?o faz qualquer distin??o de fatores de atribui??o da responsabilidade p?blica. Por essa raz?o, conclui-se que, melhor do que transplantar um instituto alien?gena, ? poss?vel afirmar uma responsabilidade p?blica por omiss?es de forma objetiva, dando a preval?ncia imprescind?vel ao nexo causal, por interm?dio da teoria da causalidade adequada, permitindo um ju?zo retrospectivo de probabilidade, sob as luzes dos princ?pios informadores da Administra??o P?blica, em especial os da razoabilidade e efici?ncia, na concretiza??o da boa administra??o p?blica, obriga??o inerente aos poderes p?blicos de promover os direitos fundamentais das pessoas, fomentando sua dignidade de forma que as atua??es administrativas harmonizem crit?rios de objetividade, imparcialidade, justi?a e equidade, e que sejam prestadas em prazos razo?veis, possibilitando o livre e solid?rio desenvolvimento de cada pessoa em sua sociedade. A razoabilidade exige a exist?ncia de determinada rela??o de equival?ncia entre a medida adotada e o crit?rio que a dimensiona, conferindo a liga??o do fim que se busca e do meio que se utiliza com o exame desta adequa??o de forma abstrata, geral e antecedente. A efici?ncia no oferecimento das utilidades concretas ao cidad?o, na conjuga??o de equidade e efici?ncia do servi?o p?blico, mediante uma atua??o concertada, fomentadora, negociada, na concretiza??o dos direitos fundamentais.