分析最高法院和最高法院关于知情权和环境信息的决定

Vanessa Correia, Ana Clara Cruz Santos de Santana, Amanda Nunes Lopes Espiñeira Lemos
{"title":"分析最高法院和最高法院关于知情权和环境信息的决定","authors":"Vanessa Correia, Ana Clara Cruz Santos de Santana, Amanda Nunes Lopes Espiñeira Lemos","doi":"10.21708/ISSN2526-9488.V2.N4.P128-140.2018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This work aims to analyze the jurisprudence of STF and STJ regarding the right of access to information and environmental information, provided for in Laws 12.527/2011 and 10.650/2003, respectively. How the Brazilian Courts interpret the subject of access to information? What are the main arguments used in these decisions? Methodologically it was a case law search in the STF and in the STJ from search terms, or keywords on the topic and Boolean operators. The institutional cut of the choice of organs arose from the need to study the issue of access to information through the Judiciary, in addition to being superior instances with influence and strength of precedents in our legal system, whose decisions once delivered result in the transit judgment of the action. There were five judgments, which were tabled based on the following categories: origin, resource, destination, parties involved in the dispute and arguments of the decision and subsequent qualitative analysis. It is noticed that the tendency of the judges is to assure the access to the information to the parties that pleaded it. The main reasoning of the judges, in turn, is that the right of access to information needs protection to promote citizenship.","PeriodicalId":416966,"journal":{"name":"Revista Jurídica da UFERSA","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ANÁLISE SOBRE AS DECISÕES DO STF E STJ SOBRE DIREITO À INFORMAÇÃO E INFORMAÇÃO AMBIENTAL\",\"authors\":\"Vanessa Correia, Ana Clara Cruz Santos de Santana, Amanda Nunes Lopes Espiñeira Lemos\",\"doi\":\"10.21708/ISSN2526-9488.V2.N4.P128-140.2018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This work aims to analyze the jurisprudence of STF and STJ regarding the right of access to information and environmental information, provided for in Laws 12.527/2011 and 10.650/2003, respectively. How the Brazilian Courts interpret the subject of access to information? What are the main arguments used in these decisions? Methodologically it was a case law search in the STF and in the STJ from search terms, or keywords on the topic and Boolean operators. The institutional cut of the choice of organs arose from the need to study the issue of access to information through the Judiciary, in addition to being superior instances with influence and strength of precedents in our legal system, whose decisions once delivered result in the transit judgment of the action. There were five judgments, which were tabled based on the following categories: origin, resource, destination, parties involved in the dispute and arguments of the decision and subsequent qualitative analysis. It is noticed that the tendency of the judges is to assure the access to the information to the parties that pleaded it. The main reasoning of the judges, in turn, is that the right of access to information needs protection to promote citizenship.\",\"PeriodicalId\":416966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Jurídica da UFERSA\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Jurídica da UFERSA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21708/ISSN2526-9488.V2.N4.P128-140.2018\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Jurídica da UFERSA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21708/ISSN2526-9488.V2.N4.P128-140.2018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本工作旨在分析STF和STJ在12.527/2011和10.650/2003号法律分别规定的信息获取权和环境信息获取权方面的判例。巴西法院如何解释信息获取的主体?在这些决定中使用的主要论据是什么?从方法上讲,这是在STF和STJ中从搜索词或主题关键字和布尔运算符中进行的判例法搜索。机构选择的制度性削减是由于需要研究通过司法机构获取信息的问题,此外,司法机构是我们法律制度中具有先例影响力和力量的高级机构,其决定一旦作出,就会导致对诉讼的过境判决。共有五项判决,它们是根据下列类别提出的:原产地、资源、目的地、涉及争端的各方和决定的论据以及随后的定性分析。值得注意的是,法官的倾向是保证提出请求的当事方获得资料。反过来,法官的主要理由是,获取信息的权利需要得到保护,以促进公民身份。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ANÁLISE SOBRE AS DECISÕES DO STF E STJ SOBRE DIREITO À INFORMAÇÃO E INFORMAÇÃO AMBIENTAL
This work aims to analyze the jurisprudence of STF and STJ regarding the right of access to information and environmental information, provided for in Laws 12.527/2011 and 10.650/2003, respectively. How the Brazilian Courts interpret the subject of access to information? What are the main arguments used in these decisions? Methodologically it was a case law search in the STF and in the STJ from search terms, or keywords on the topic and Boolean operators. The institutional cut of the choice of organs arose from the need to study the issue of access to information through the Judiciary, in addition to being superior instances with influence and strength of precedents in our legal system, whose decisions once delivered result in the transit judgment of the action. There were five judgments, which were tabled based on the following categories: origin, resource, destination, parties involved in the dispute and arguments of the decision and subsequent qualitative analysis. It is noticed that the tendency of the judges is to assure the access to the information to the parties that pleaded it. The main reasoning of the judges, in turn, is that the right of access to information needs protection to promote citizenship.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信