A carregar...
Publicação
O princípio da proibição da reformatio in pejus no direito das contraordenações : em especial a lei quadro das contraordenações ambientais
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 749.23 KB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
O princípio da proibição da reformatio in pejus apresenta-se como um princípio geral no Direito Penal e com ele postulam-se as garantias de defesa do arguido, mormente o direito a um recurso pleno e efetivo.
O Direito das Contraordenações tradicional tem na sua base infrações axiológico-socialmente neutras, desnutridas de qualquer desvalor ético-social, sendo somente proibidas porque existe uma norma legal a prevê-lo, pelo que a doutrina tem entendido, na sua maioria, que não há lugar à aplicação deste princípio no Direito das Contraordenações, por serem menores as exigências de salvaguarda das garantias de defesa do arguido, condenando por isso o Regime Geral das Contraordenações por tê-lo consagrado no processo contraordenacional.
A Lei Quadro das Contraordenações Ambientais, que se apresenta como lei especial face ao Regime Geral e que visa regular o processo das contraordenações ambientais, cujos comportamentos são nos dias de hoje bastante censuráveis e com um elevadíssimo desvalor moral atribuído pela sociedade - motivo pelo qual decidimos analisar este regime - afasta expressamente a proibição da reformatio in pejus e, atendendo ao seu regime de impugnação e ao facto de este regime se reportar a grandes contraordenações, isto é, a contraordenações cujos comportamentos se aproximam mais dos ilícitos penais do que às chamadas contraordenações bagatelares, por serem axiológico-socialmente relevantes e pelas coimas e sanções acessórias que lhes são aplicadas se apresentarem, em muitos casos, mais gravosas que as penas em processo penal, devemos concluir que tal afastamento limita de forma excessiva e intolerável as garantias de defesa do arguido, quer em fase de impugnação da decisão aplicada pela autoridade administrativa - limitando o direito a uma tutela jurisdicional efetiva - quer em fase de recurso da sentença do Tribunal de 1.ª instância - limitando o direito de recurso do arguido - pelo que a norma que afasta o princípio da proibição da reformatio in pejus viola os preceitos constitucionais que salvaguardam as garantias de defesa do arguido e de tutela jurisdicional efetiva, previstos nos artigos 32.º, n.º 10, 20.º, n.º 1 e 268.º, n.º 4 da Constituição da República Portuguesa, bem como o princípio da igualdade, dada a discrepância entre o regime previsto para as contraordenações bagatelares e para as contraordenações ambientais, que se apresentam como grandes contraordenações e onde as garantias de defesa do arguido carecem de maior tutela.
The prohibition of reformatio in pejus principle is a general principle in Criminal Law and with it the defendant's defense guarantees are postulated, especially the right to a full and effective appeal. The traditional Administrative Offenses Law is based on axiological-social neutral infractions, devoided of any ethical-social disvalue and only prohibited because there is a legal rule providing for it, reason why the doctrine has understood, for the most part, that there is no place for this principle to be applied in Administrative Offenses Law, because the requirements for safeguarding the defendant's defense guarantees are lower and so they condemn the General Administrative Offenses Regime for having enshrined this principle. The Framework Law on Environmental Administrative Offenses, which is presented as a special law relatively to the General Regime and aims to regulate the process of environmental offences, whose behaviours are nowadays highly reprehensible and have a huge moral value attributed to it by society - which is why we decided to analyse this system - expressly rules out the prohibition of reformatio in pejus and due to it’s appeals’ system, added to the fact that this regime refers to major administrative offenses, which are administrative offenses whose behavior is closer to criminal offenses than to so-called bagatelle administrative offenses because they are axiologically and socially relevant and because the fines and accessory sanctions applied to them are, in many cases, more severe than the penalties in criminal proceedings, we must conclude that such exclusion limits the defendant's defense guarantees in an excessive and intolerable way, both at the stage of contestation the decision applied by the administrative authority - limiting the right to an effective judicial protection - and at the stage of appealing the sentence of the court of first instance - limiting the defendant's right to appeal - therefore, the rule that removes the prohibition of reformatio in pejus principle violates the constitutional precepts that safeguard the guarantees of the defendant's defense and effective judicial protection, provided for in articles 32 no. 10, 20, no. 1 and 268, no. 4 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, as well as the principle of equality due to the discrepancy between the regime prescribed for bagatelle administrative offenses and for the environmental administrative offenses, which are major administrative offenses and where the defendant's defense guarantees require greater protection.
The prohibition of reformatio in pejus principle is a general principle in Criminal Law and with it the defendant's defense guarantees are postulated, especially the right to a full and effective appeal. The traditional Administrative Offenses Law is based on axiological-social neutral infractions, devoided of any ethical-social disvalue and only prohibited because there is a legal rule providing for it, reason why the doctrine has understood, for the most part, that there is no place for this principle to be applied in Administrative Offenses Law, because the requirements for safeguarding the defendant's defense guarantees are lower and so they condemn the General Administrative Offenses Regime for having enshrined this principle. The Framework Law on Environmental Administrative Offenses, which is presented as a special law relatively to the General Regime and aims to regulate the process of environmental offences, whose behaviours are nowadays highly reprehensible and have a huge moral value attributed to it by society - which is why we decided to analyse this system - expressly rules out the prohibition of reformatio in pejus and due to it’s appeals’ system, added to the fact that this regime refers to major administrative offenses, which are administrative offenses whose behavior is closer to criminal offenses than to so-called bagatelle administrative offenses because they are axiologically and socially relevant and because the fines and accessory sanctions applied to them are, in many cases, more severe than the penalties in criminal proceedings, we must conclude that such exclusion limits the defendant's defense guarantees in an excessive and intolerable way, both at the stage of contestation the decision applied by the administrative authority - limiting the right to an effective judicial protection - and at the stage of appealing the sentence of the court of first instance - limiting the defendant's right to appeal - therefore, the rule that removes the prohibition of reformatio in pejus principle violates the constitutional precepts that safeguard the guarantees of the defendant's defense and effective judicial protection, provided for in articles 32 no. 10, 20, no. 1 and 268, no. 4 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, as well as the principle of equality due to the discrepancy between the regime prescribed for bagatelle administrative offenses and for the environmental administrative offenses, which are major administrative offenses and where the defendant's defense guarantees require greater protection.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Direito penal Contraordenações Reformatio in pejus Garantias de defesa Arguido Tutela jurisdicional efectiva Recurso Teses de mestrado - 2024 Criminal law Administrative offenses law Reformatio in pejus Defense guarantees Defendant Effective jurisdictional protection Appeal