Public Financial Sustainability and Judicial Power: When Courts Use the Lack of Public Money as a Decision Argument
The present project attempted to capture the meaning and scope of jurisdictional decisions, when in the underlying disputes, issues of austerity and lack of public funds emerge. In particular, it sought to ascertain whether the courts are sensitive to the crisis, considering the lack of money as a legal criterion of motivation, or whether they simply protect themselves under the classical legality, deciding only on strictly positivistic criteria. The issue is relevant in the most diverse areas where money is lacking, with courts having to decide between a strict application of the law or one that introduces corrective components, possibly restricting rights: (i) in the scope of healthcare provision by public institutions; (ii) in the context of contracted loans by local authorities; (iii) in the context of institutionalizing children or young people at risk; (iv) in the decree of effective prison sentences or obligations to remain at home; or (v) in checking the constitutionality of rules that provide for tax increases or cuts in public expenditure (e.g., salaries, pensions). This set of issues is particularly revelant in a context in which the courts have special duties of attention and care in relation to the reality in which they operate. Furthermore, the state of need that characterizes current corporate structures cannot be neglected.
Duration: … – December 2022.
Team: Andreia Barbosa, Cristina Dias, Hugo Flores da Silva, Joana Abreu, Rossana Martingo Cruz, Tiago Lopes Azevedo.
JusGov Research Groups: JusLab