O CONTROLE DE PROGNOSE LEGISLATIVA NA JURISPRUDÊNCIA DO TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL FEDERAL DA ALEMANHA
EVIDENCE-BASED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATION IN THE CASE LAW OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GERMANY
Mots-clés :
Controle de constitucionalidade, Devido processo legislativo, Prognose Legislativa, Tribunal Constitucional Federal da AlemanhaRésumé
A constitucionalidade das leis, realizada pelos órgãos da jurisdição constitucional, requer, de maneira expressa ou implícita, que o processo legislativo se tenha baseado em elementos empíricos ou em evidências que sustentem as prognoses nelas positivadas. Esse requerimento tende a ser aferido geralmente por meio de juízos formais de conformidade, mas, como revela a jurisprudência do Tribunal Constitucional Federal da Alemanha, é, às vezes, avaliado por incursões em elementos factuais que integraram o processo deliberativo no âmbito parlamentar. A subteorização da matéria e a crítica democrática de reconhecimento de uma competência judicial de tamanha magnitude têm propiciado intervenções judiciais sem muita coerência ou previsibilidade. No presente artigo, procuram-se respostas na jurisprudência do Tribunal Constitucional Federal da Alemanha. Na metodologia utilizou-se a pesquisa bibliográfica e documental.
Téléchargements
Références
ALEMANHA. Lei Orgânica do Tribunal Constitucional Federal ( “Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz – BverfGG”, 12/3²1951. Disponível em: < https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bverfgg/BJNR002430951.html >. Acesso em 25 mar. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federa BverfGE 86, 148, de 27/5/1992 . Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv086148.html>. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2020
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federa. BVerfGE 115, 97, de 18/1/2006. Disponível em: <https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv115097.html>. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE, 128, 1 (Gentechnikgesetz), de 24/11/2010. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv128001.html>. Acesso em 12 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE, 49, 89 (Kalkar I), de 8/8/1978. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv049089.html>. Acesso em 12 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BverfGE 101, 158, 224, 234,de 11/11/1999. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv101158.html>. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 111, 226, de 27/7/2004b. Disponível em:< https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv111226.html>. Acesso em: 12 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 111, 333 (Brandenburgisches Hochschulgesetz), de 26/10/2004a. Disponível em: <https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv111333.html>. Acesso em: 12 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 155, 135, de 28/1/2014 (Filmabgabe). Disponível em: <https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2014/01/rs20140128_2bvr156112.html>. Acesso em 11 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 35, 79 (Hochschulurteil), de 29/5/1973. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv035079.html>. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 39, 210, de 19/3/1975 (Mühlenstrukturgesetz). Disponível em: <https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv039210.html>. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2020
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 50, 290, (Mitbestimmung). julgado em 1/3/1979. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv050290.html>. Acesso em 12 dez. 2019
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 7, 377, julgamento 11/6/1958. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/Dfr/bv007377.html>. Acesso em: 12 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 79, 311 (Staatsverschuldung), de 18/4/1989. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv079311.html>. Acesso em 19 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 88, 203 (Schwangerschaftsabbruch II), de 28/5/1993a. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv088203.html>. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 88, 87(Transsexuelle II), julgamento 26/01/1993b. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv088087.html>. Acesso em: 12 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE, 106, 62, de 24/10/2002 (Altenpflegegesetz). Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv106062.html>. Acesso em 11/12/2019.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE, 120, 224 (Geschwisterbeischlaf), de 26/2/2008a. Disponível em: <https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv120224.html>. Acesso em: 15 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE, 129, 49 (Mediziner-BAföG), para 65, de 21/7/2011. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv129049.html>. Acesso em 11 fev. 2020.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE, 90, 145 (Cannabis), de 9/3/1994. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv090145.html>. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2020.
BICKENBACH, Christian. Legislative Margins of Appreciation as the Result of Rational Lawmaking. In MEßERSCHMID, Klaus;. OLIVER-LALANA, Daniel (eds). Rational Lawmaking under Review: Legisprudence According to the German Federal Constitutional Court. Zurich: Springer, 2016.
BUZBEE, William W.; SCHAPIRO, Robert A. Legislative Record Review. Stanford Law Review, v. 54, n. 1, p. 87-161, 98 n. 31, 2001.
CHENG, Edward K. Independent Judicial Research in the Daubert Age. Duke Law Journal, v.56, p. 1263-1318, 2007.
COENEN, Dan T. A Constitution of Collaboration: Protecting Fundamental Values with Second-Look Rules of Interbranch Dialogue. William and Mary Law Review, v. 42, n. 5, p. 1575-1870, 2001
FLÜCKINGER, Alexandre. Case-law sources for evaluating the impact of legislation: an application of the precautionary principle to fundamental rights. Theory and Practice of Legislation, v. 4, n. 2 (Evidence-based Review of Legislation), p. 263-277, 2016.
FRICKEY; Philip P. Frickey; SMITH, Steve S. Judicial Review, the Congressional Process, and the Federalism Cases: An Interdisciplinary Critique. Yale Law Journal, v. 111, p. 1706-1756, 2002.
GEIGER, WilliI. Gegenwartsprobleme der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit aus deutscher Sicht. in BERBERICH, Thomas; HOLL, Wolfgang; MAAβ Kurt-Jürgen (Hrsg). Neue Entwicklungen im öffentlichen Recht. Berlin; Köln; Mainz: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, p. 131-142, 1979
GUSY, Christoph. Parlamentarischer Gesetzgeber und Bundesverfassungsgericht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1985.
KEETON, Robert E. Legislative Facts and Similar Things: Deciding Disputed Premise Facts. Minnesota Law Review, v. 3, p. 1- 22, 1988
KISCHEL, Uwe. Die Begründung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003
LARSEN, Allison O. Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding. Virginia Law Review, v. 98, p. 1255-1312, 2012.
MEAZELL, Emily H. Scientific Avoidance: Toward More Principled Judicial Review of Legislative Science. Indiana Law Journal, v. 84, n. 1, p. 239- 283 2009.
MENDES, Gilmar F. Controle de constitucionalidade: hermenêutica constitucional e revisão de fatos e prognoses legislativos pelo órgão judicial. Revista Jurídica da Presidência, v. 1, n. 8, 2000. Disponível em: <https://revistajuridica.presidencia.gov.br/index.php/saj/article/viewFile/1063/1047>. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2020.
MEßERSCHMIDT, Klaus. Evidence-based review of legislation in Germany. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, v. 4, n. 2, p. 209-235, 2016.
OSSENBÜHL, Fritz. Die Kontrolle von Tatsachenfeststellungen und Prognoseentscheidungen. In STARCK, Christian Bundesverfassungsgericht und Grundgesetz. Festgabe aus Anlaß des 25jährigen Bestehens des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Bd. I (Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976
OSSENBÜHL, Fritz. Gesetz und Recht - Die Rechtsquellen im demokratischen Rechtsstaat. In ISENSEE, Josef; KRICHHOF, Paul. Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bd. V (Rechtsquelle; Organisation; Finanzen). Heidelberg: C.F. Müller Juristischer Verlag, p. 135-181, 2007.
PHILIPPI, Klaus J. Tatsachenfeststellungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Köln: Heymanns, 1971.
ROSE-ACKERMAN, Susan; EGIDY, Stefanie; FOWKES, James. Due Process of Lawmaking: The United States, South Africa, Germany, and European Union. New York: Cambridge University Press 2015.
ROSS, Bertrall L., The State as Witness: Windsor, Shelby County, and Judicial Distrust of the Legislative Record. New York University Law Review, v. 89, p. 2027-2105, 2014.
SAUL, Matthew. Structuring evaluations of parliamentary processes by the European Court of Human Rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, v. 20, p. 1077-1096, 2016.
SAUL, Matthew. The European Court of Human Rights’ Margin of Appreciation and the Processes of National Parliaments. Human Rights Law Review, v. 15, n. 4, p. 745–774, 2015
VERMEULE, Adrian. Judging under Uncertainty: An Institutional Theory of Legal Interpretation. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press 2006.
WALDHOFF, Christian. On Constitutional Duties to Give Reasons for Legislative Acts. In MEßERSCHMIDT, Klaus; OLIVER-LALANA, Daniel (eds). Rational Lawmaking under Review: Legisprudence According to the German Federal Constitutional Court., p. 129-151, 2016
ZHANG, Qingbo. Juristische Argumentation durch Folgenorientierung. Bedeutung der juristischen Argumentation für China. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
Les auteurs qui publient dans cette revue accordent à Revista da Faculdade de Direito da UFG une licence mondiale libre de droits, soumise aux termes et conditions de la Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Brasil Legal License Creative Commons Attribution License
Les auteurs concèdent à RFD UFG tous les droits d'auteur sur les articles qui y sont publiés, qui les conservent en exclusivité jusqu'à l'avènement du domaine public sur ceux-ci.
