critical analysis provided for administrative commitment of the institute in article 23 , of bill n. 349/2015, of senate, which deals with the change of birbl

Clicks: 178
ID: 209271
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #61 of 71 articles by views in mathematical problems in engineering

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
This article aims to analyze the option provided for in Article 23, § 2, of the PLS n. 349/2015 of the administrative authority to require judicial authorization to enter into engagement with stakeholders, administrative agreements. As a result of such discussions is possible to infer that the bringing, by allowing the submission of adjustment to voluntary jurisdiction, it appears to be political and legally inadequate because of step with the non-judicialisation phenomenon, and also to disregard the powers of public advocacy, the limits of voluntary jurisdiction and the principles of separation of powers and republican.
Reference Key
oliveira2016revistacritical Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Raul Miguel Freitas de Oliveira;Dirceu Giglio Pereira
Journal mathematical problems in engineering
Year 2016
DOI
10.26668/IndexLawJournals/2526-0073/2016.v2i1.651
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.