Full Text:


This text seeks to identify the objective and subjective aspects of rights to an existential minimum in health care, based on international parameters which, because they are restricted to the internal scope of a nation, depend on a constitutional basis and on comprehensible facts, the demonstration of which should be the responsibility of the national administrative authority. Regarding the judicial review of the minimum right to healthcare, this paper points out that it is a serious mistake to try to handle public health conflicts according to the typical judicial principles governing conflicts under private law, because that distorts the public health system, with judicial orders that depart from the universal access to health care and that are often impossible to comply with. The article concludes that the judicial review of administrative authorities in matters involving the right to health necessarily requires simultaneous judicial review of the corresponding administrative procedures.

About the Author

R. Perlingeiro
Fluminense Federal University, Rio de Janeiro

Ricardo Perlingeiro (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) – Full Professor at Law School, Fluminense Federal university, Federal Appellate Judge of the Regional Federal Court of the 2nd  Region (Rio de Janeiro) and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the National Council of Justice for the Monitoring and Settlement of Health Care Assistance Claims in the State of Rio de Janeiro

(84 Rua Professor Hernani Melo, São Domingos, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, 24210-130, Brasil)


1. Alexy, Robert. Teoria dos direitos fundamentais 470, 472, 512–13 (Virgílio A. da Silva, trans.) (Malheiros 2008).

2. Cane, Peter. Administrative Law 4–9 (5th ed., Oxford university Press 2011).

3. Clarich, Marcello. XIV. L’esecuzione, Diritto processuale amministrativo (= 7 Corso di diritto amministrativo diretto da Sabino Cassese) 297, 302–03 (Aldo Sandulli, ed.) (2nd ed., giuffrè 2013).

4. General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12), u.N. ESCOR, Comm. on Econ., Soc. & Cult. Rts., 22nd Sess., u.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4 (2000), at <> (accessed Aug. 5, 2015).

5. Häberle, Peter. Grundrechte im Leistungsstaat, in Wolfgang Martens et al., grundrechte im Leistungsstaat. Die Dogmatik des Verwaltungsrechts vor den gegenwartsaufgaben der Verwaltung. Berichte und Diskussionen auf der Tagung der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer in Regensburg vom 29. September bis 2. Oktober 1971 (= 30 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer (VVDStRL)) 43, 49 ff. (De gruyter 1972), available at <> (accessed Aug. 5, 2015).

6. Hesse, Konrad. Bestand und Bedeutung der Grundrechte in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 5 Europäische grundrechte-Zeitschrift (EugRZ) 427 (1978).

7. L’exécution des décisions des jurisdictions administratives: VIIIème congrès de l’Association internationale des hautes juridictions administratives (Madrid, 2004), <> (accessed Aug. 5, 2015).

8. Mari, giuseppina. Il giudizio di ottemperanza, in 2 Il nuovo processo amministrativo 457 (Maria A. Sandulli, ed.) (giuffrè 2013).

9. Maurer, Hartmut. Derecho administrativo alemán (= 637 Doctrina Jurídica) 50–54, 57–58, 114–28, 406, 479 (universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 2012).

10. Ojeda, Alberto R. La ejecucion de creditos pecuniarios contra entes publicos 21 (Civitas 1993).

11. Pellegrini grinover, Ada. O controle jurisdicional de políticas públicas, in O controle jurisdicional de políticas públicas 138 (Ada Pellegrini grinover & Kazuo Watanabe, eds.) (2nd ed., Forense 2013).

12. Perlingeiro, Ricardo. A tutela judicial do direito público à saúde no Brasil, 2012(41) Direito, Estado e Sociedade, available at <> (accessed Aug. 5, 2015).

13. Perlingeiro, Ricardo. È a reserva do possível um limite à intervenção jurisdicional nas políticas públicas sociais? / Does the Vorbehalt des Möglichen (the Proviso of the Possible) Limit Judicial Intervention in Social Public Policies?, 1(2) Revista de Direito Administrativo Contemporâneo (ReDAC) 182–83 (2013), available at <> (accessed Aug. 5, 2015).

14. Perlingeiro, Ricardo. O princípio da isonomia na tutela judicial individual e coletiva, e em outros meios de solução de conflitos, junto ao SUS e aos planos privados de saúde, 5(10) R. Proc.-geral Mun. Belo Horizonte (RPgMBH) (2012), available at <> (accessed Aug. 5, 2015).

15. Perlingeiro, Ricardo. Os cuidados de saúde dos idosos entre as limitações orçamentárias e o direito a um mínimo existencial / Health Care for the Elderly: Between the Budget Constraints and the Right to an Existential Minimum, 15(1) R. Dir. sanit. (2014), available at <> (accessed Aug. 5, 2015). doi:10.11606/issn.2316-9044.v15i1p83-118

16. Rivero, Jean, & Waline, Jean. Droit administratif 1–5 (21st ed., Dalloz 2006).

17. Sommermann, Karl-Peter. Soziale Rechte in Stufen: Überwindung einer alten Debatte?, in Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Freiheit und soziale Rechte in der Europäischen union: Deidesheimer Kolloquium 2012 zu Ehren von Detlef Merten anlässlich seines 75. geburtstages (= 80 Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen und Reden zur Philosophie, Politik und geistesgeschichte) 107 (Christian Calliess et al., eds.) (Duncker & Humblot 2014).

18. The Right to Health: Fact Sheet No. 31, at 5 (Office of the united Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); World Health Organization (WHO) 2008), available at <> (accessed Aug. 5, 2015).

19. Wolff, Hans J., et al. 1 Direito administrativo 255, 263–86, 490 (António F. de Sousa, trans.) (Fundação Calouste gulbenkian 2006).

20. Ziller, Jacques. Modelli di responsabilità dell’amministrazione in alcuni ordinamenti europei, 2009(2) Dir. e soc.

Supplementary files


Views: 590


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2409-9058 (Print)
ISSN 2412-2343 (Online)