Fernanda Farina
ESG Forensic Senior Manager at KPMG UK. Qualified lawyer specialised in public law and human rights. Legal Researcher.
PhD from the Faculty of Law, Centre of Socio-Legal Studies, of the University of Oxford. Master Degree in Civil Procedure from the Faculty of Law of the University of São Paulo, with the dissertation "Aggregation Techniques in Civil Procedure: a comparative analysis with the experience of USA in search for procedural efficiency".
Visiting Scholar at the Columbia University School of Law, supervised by Prof. Bert I. Huang. Research: "Aggregation Techniques in American Civil Procedure: a compared analysis in search of efficiency"
Law Degree, with honor, from the Law School of the Pontifical University of São Paulo (PUC/SP).
Law Clerk for Judge Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva at the Superior Court of Justice (STJ).
Supervisors: Bettina Lange, José Rogério Cruz e Tucci, Bert I. Huang, and Cassio Scarpinella Bueno
PhD from the Faculty of Law, Centre of Socio-Legal Studies, of the University of Oxford. Master Degree in Civil Procedure from the Faculty of Law of the University of São Paulo, with the dissertation "Aggregation Techniques in Civil Procedure: a comparative analysis with the experience of USA in search for procedural efficiency".
Visiting Scholar at the Columbia University School of Law, supervised by Prof. Bert I. Huang. Research: "Aggregation Techniques in American Civil Procedure: a compared analysis in search of efficiency"
Law Degree, with honor, from the Law School of the Pontifical University of São Paulo (PUC/SP).
Law Clerk for Judge Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva at the Superior Court of Justice (STJ).
Supervisors: Bettina Lange, José Rogério Cruz e Tucci, Bert I. Huang, and Cassio Scarpinella Bueno
less
InterestsView All (44)
Uploads
Papers by Fernanda Farina
To study the topic on a national perspective, we propose to observe the experience and directions taken by antitrust policies in other countries, in order to demonstrate the importance of private class actions in enforcing antitrust law and deterring economic illicit.
In conclusion, we aim to compare the existing Brazilian procedural mechanisms for solving collective damage redress and to analyse its efficiency in enforcing antitrust policy in Brazil.
To respond these questions, this paper analysis a few Brazilian hard cases, specially contrasting the application of the same statute in different time periods. The goal is to show that, in various civil law jurisdictions, such as Brazil, modern judges are more than ever able to modify the law, operating equity decisions in a wide range of cases and undermining the dogma of civil law judges as mere statute appliers.
The conclusion reached is that the Brazilian Judiciary is only allowed to review the constitutional and legal aspects of the administrative decision, in consonance with the rule of law. The merits, on the other hand, are technical and discretionary matters entitled only to the administrative authority.
Thesis Chapters by Fernanda Farina
To answer this question, the thesis provides an in-depth analysis of qualitative empirical data about health care litigation in Brazil, based on semi-structured interviews with 55 actors – with a particular focus on judges and litigants.
The main outcome of the research is a middle-range theory about the links between internal and external socio-legal factors that influence the rise of successful health care litigation in Brazil. The thesis argues that there is a complex socio-legal web that combines various types of factors. A central factor that influences judges to grant health care claims is a deep-sited distrust in the quality of the health care public policy and the policymaker, aligned with an individual self-empowerment and tendency to altruism. The result is an attenuated form of judicial activism that uses the substantive constitutional law as a hindsight justification for granting claims. In parallel, a utilitarian trust in the positive outcome of legal action and low costs of litigating incentivises litigants to start legal action against the state. These various factors are analysed in the context of a post-colonial society, where citizens’ individualist approach to the State, and the commodification of health incentivise the multiplication of individual litigation for access to health care.
To study the topic on a national perspective, we propose to observe the experience and directions taken by antitrust policies in other countries, in order to demonstrate the importance of private class actions in enforcing antitrust law and deterring economic illicit.
In conclusion, we aim to compare the existing Brazilian procedural mechanisms for solving collective damage redress and to analyse its efficiency in enforcing antitrust policy in Brazil.
To respond these questions, this paper analysis a few Brazilian hard cases, specially contrasting the application of the same statute in different time periods. The goal is to show that, in various civil law jurisdictions, such as Brazil, modern judges are more than ever able to modify the law, operating equity decisions in a wide range of cases and undermining the dogma of civil law judges as mere statute appliers.
The conclusion reached is that the Brazilian Judiciary is only allowed to review the constitutional and legal aspects of the administrative decision, in consonance with the rule of law. The merits, on the other hand, are technical and discretionary matters entitled only to the administrative authority.
To answer this question, the thesis provides an in-depth analysis of qualitative empirical data about health care litigation in Brazil, based on semi-structured interviews with 55 actors – with a particular focus on judges and litigants.
The main outcome of the research is a middle-range theory about the links between internal and external socio-legal factors that influence the rise of successful health care litigation in Brazil. The thesis argues that there is a complex socio-legal web that combines various types of factors. A central factor that influences judges to grant health care claims is a deep-sited distrust in the quality of the health care public policy and the policymaker, aligned with an individual self-empowerment and tendency to altruism. The result is an attenuated form of judicial activism that uses the substantive constitutional law as a hindsight justification for granting claims. In parallel, a utilitarian trust in the positive outcome of legal action and low costs of litigating incentivises litigants to start legal action against the state. These various factors are analysed in the context of a post-colonial society, where citizens’ individualist approach to the State, and the commodification of health incentivise the multiplication of individual litigation for access to health care.