A carregar...
Publicação
Os pressupostos e efeitos da Lei da Amnistia de 2023 no Regulamento de Disciplina da GNR
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 700.69 KB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
A presente dissertação visa estudar o impacto da Lei nº 38-A/2023, de 02 de agosto, no direito disciplinar da Guarda Nacional Republicana. Com foco na amnistia, concluiu-se que não existe unanimidade na doutrina e na jurisprudência quanto aos seus efeitos jurídicos, bem como que há uma miríade de causas associadas à aplicação da amnistia, algumas gerando dúvidas sobre sua legitimidade. A Lei nº 38-A/2023 foi abordada quanto a sua hipotética desconformidade constitucional face ao critério subjetivo do intervalo de idades, concluindo-se que respeita o quadro constitucional. O critério subjetivo do intervalo de idades gerou ainda dúvidas interpretativas quanto à inclusão do patamar de 30 (trinta) anos no momento de aplicação da lei. No Regulamento de Disciplina da GNR não existe uma norma que regule expressamente o instituto da amnistia, existindo remissão para o Código Penal. Comparando diplomas de Direito Disciplinar Público, retirou-se que a remissão para a legislação penal da definição dos efeitos da amnistia leva à aplicação desta sem adaptação face às diferenças entre o Direito Disciplinar e o Direito Penal. Da aplicação da Lei nº 38-A/2023 ao RDGNR, resulta que, quando uma conduta tem relevância criminal e não é amnistiável, caso se revista de relevância disciplinar simultânea, não é passível de amnistia neste âmbito. Existindo uma decisão disciplinar cujo procedimento disciplinar se encontra extinto, os efeitos da amnistia apenas incindem na pena e nos efeitos que dela decorrem e que subsistem, não tornando inexistente o ato administrativo sancionatório. Quanto aos processos estatutários, condutas com relevância disciplinar dos militares são inapagáveis enquanto factos, não tendo a amnistia a aptidão para as subtrair à realidade histórica, sendo aptas a consideração no processo estatutário da GNR.
This dissertation aims to study the impact of Law No. 38-A/2023, of 2 August, on the disciplinary law of the National Republican Guard (GNR). Focusing on the concept of amnesty—the central subject of this work—it is concluded that there is no consensus in legal doctrine or case law regarding its effects, as well as a myriad of causes associated with its application, some of which raise questions regarding their legitimacy. Law No. 38-A/2023 is examined in relation to its hypothetical unconstitutionality due to the subjective criterion of the age range. It is concluded that the law complies with the constitutional framework. The subjective age criterion also gave rise to interpretative doubts as to whether the thirty-year age threshold should be included or excluded at the time of the law's application. Regarding public disciplinary law, the GNR Disciplinary Regulation is highlighted for lacking a specific provision that expressly regulates the concept of “amnesty”, instead referring to the Penal Code. A comparison with other public disciplinary law statutes reveals that referring the definition of the effects of amnesty to criminal legislation leads to its application without adapting for the differences between disciplinary law and criminal law. The dissertation further analyses the effects of applying Law No. 38-A/2023 to the GNR Disciplinary Regulation (RDGNR), concluding that when a conduct has criminal relevance and is not eligible for amnesty, it cannot benefit from amnesty in the disciplinary context either, even if it holds simultaneous disciplinary relevance. Where a disciplinary decision has been issued and the respective disciplinary procedure has been closed, the effects of amnesty are limited to the penalty and any continuing legal consequences. Amnesty does not render the administrative sanctioning act null and void. Finally, regarding statutory procedures, it is concluded that actions with disciplinary relevance committed by military personnel remain unerasable as historical facts. Amnesty does not have the capacity to erase them from historical reality, and they may be considered in the GNR's statutory proceedings.
This dissertation aims to study the impact of Law No. 38-A/2023, of 2 August, on the disciplinary law of the National Republican Guard (GNR). Focusing on the concept of amnesty—the central subject of this work—it is concluded that there is no consensus in legal doctrine or case law regarding its effects, as well as a myriad of causes associated with its application, some of which raise questions regarding their legitimacy. Law No. 38-A/2023 is examined in relation to its hypothetical unconstitutionality due to the subjective criterion of the age range. It is concluded that the law complies with the constitutional framework. The subjective age criterion also gave rise to interpretative doubts as to whether the thirty-year age threshold should be included or excluded at the time of the law's application. Regarding public disciplinary law, the GNR Disciplinary Regulation is highlighted for lacking a specific provision that expressly regulates the concept of “amnesty”, instead referring to the Penal Code. A comparison with other public disciplinary law statutes reveals that referring the definition of the effects of amnesty to criminal legislation leads to its application without adapting for the differences between disciplinary law and criminal law. The dissertation further analyses the effects of applying Law No. 38-A/2023 to the GNR Disciplinary Regulation (RDGNR), concluding that when a conduct has criminal relevance and is not eligible for amnesty, it cannot benefit from amnesty in the disciplinary context either, even if it holds simultaneous disciplinary relevance. Where a disciplinary decision has been issued and the respective disciplinary procedure has been closed, the effects of amnesty are limited to the penalty and any continuing legal consequences. Amnesty does not render the administrative sanctioning act null and void. Finally, regarding statutory procedures, it is concluded that actions with disciplinary relevance committed by military personnel remain unerasable as historical facts. Amnesty does not have the capacity to erase them from historical reality, and they may be considered in the GNR's statutory proceedings.
Descrição
Tese de mestrado, Direito e Prática Jurídica, 2025, Faculdade de Direito, Universidade de Lisboa
Palavras-chave
Guarda Nacional Republicana Regulamento de disciplina militar Procedimento disciplinar Amnistia Teses de mestrado - 2025