Loading...
Publication
Sobre a legitimidade do direito penal na violação da obrigação de alimentos
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 760.77 KB | Adobe PDF | |||
| 93.65 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
O presente estudo tem como objetivo fundamental, demonstrar se o Direito Penal tem legitimidade para intervir no âmbito da violação da obrigação de alimentos. A afirmação da legitimidade ou ilegitimidade, depende dá avaliação concreta de dois critérios, nomeadamente: a dignidade penal da conduta e a necessidade ou carência de tutela penal.
Nota-se que o titular do direito a alimentos em caso de incumprimento da obrigação de alimentos, dispõe de dois meios para garantir o cumprimento da respetiva prestação, designadamente: a tutela civil, (através do mecanismo previsto no art.º 48º do RGPTC e da execução especial de alimentos, previsto no art.º 933.º e seguintes do CPC) e a tutela penal, (através do crime de violação da obrigação de alimentos, previsto no art.º 250.º do CP).
Constatamos que o Direito Civil, em muitos domínios da violação da obrigação de alimentos apresenta-se como o meio mais adequado para tutelar a satisfação das necessidades fundamentais do alimentando. Por outro lado, a tutela penal através do crime de violação da obrigação de alimentos contraria o princípio da subsidiariedade ou da intervenção mínima, uma vez que o Direito Penal só deve intervir quando os outros ramos do Direito forem ineficazes de tutelar os bens jurídicos em causa.
Portanto, o princípio da intervenção mínima surge como interrogação da legitimidade do Direito penal no âmbito da violação da obrigação de alimentos. Ou melhor, questiona-se se em caso da violação da obrigação de alimentos seria o Direito Penal o meio necessário para tutelar os interesses em causa, uma vez que o Direito Civil já tutela o mesmo instituto.
The present study has as fundamental objective, to demonstrate if the Criminal Law has legitimacy to intervene in the scope of the violation of the maintenance obligation. The affirmation of legitimacy or illegitimacy depends on a concrete assessment of the criterion of the criminal dignity of the conduct and the need or lack of criminal protection, this is characterized by the principle of proportionality and the principle of minimum intervention. It is noted that the holder of the right to maintenance in case of non-compliance with the maintenance obligation, has two means to guarantee the fulfillment of the respective provision, namely: civil protection, (through the mechanism provided for in article 48 of the RGPTC and the special execution of maintenance provided for in article 933 and following of the CPC) and criminal protection (through the crime of violation of the maintenance obligation). We note that Civil Law, in many areas of breach of the maintenance obligation, presents itself as the most adequate means to protect the satisfaction of the fundamental needs of the holder of the right to maintenance. On the other hand, criminal protection through the crime of breach of the maintenance obligation goes against the principle of subsidiarity or minimum intervention, since Criminal Law should only intervene when the other branches of Law are ineffective in protecting the legal assets in question. Therefore, the principle of minimum intervention arises as an interrogation of the legitimacy of criminal law in the context of the violation of the maintenance obligation. Or rather, it is questioned whether in case of breach of the maintenance obligation would Criminal Law be the necessary means to protect the interests in question, since Civil Law already protects the same institute.
The present study has as fundamental objective, to demonstrate if the Criminal Law has legitimacy to intervene in the scope of the violation of the maintenance obligation. The affirmation of legitimacy or illegitimacy depends on a concrete assessment of the criterion of the criminal dignity of the conduct and the need or lack of criminal protection, this is characterized by the principle of proportionality and the principle of minimum intervention. It is noted that the holder of the right to maintenance in case of non-compliance with the maintenance obligation, has two means to guarantee the fulfillment of the respective provision, namely: civil protection, (through the mechanism provided for in article 48 of the RGPTC and the special execution of maintenance provided for in article 933 and following of the CPC) and criminal protection (through the crime of violation of the maintenance obligation). We note that Civil Law, in many areas of breach of the maintenance obligation, presents itself as the most adequate means to protect the satisfaction of the fundamental needs of the holder of the right to maintenance. On the other hand, criminal protection through the crime of breach of the maintenance obligation goes against the principle of subsidiarity or minimum intervention, since Criminal Law should only intervene when the other branches of Law are ineffective in protecting the legal assets in question. Therefore, the principle of minimum intervention arises as an interrogation of the legitimacy of criminal law in the context of the violation of the maintenance obligation. Or rather, it is questioned whether in case of breach of the maintenance obligation would Criminal Law be the necessary means to protect the interests in question, since Civil Law already protects the same institute.
Description
Keywords
Direito penal Pensão de alimentos Menores Legitimidade Teses de mestrado - 2021