24 research outputs found
A indignidade e a deserdação : uma perspetiva do Séc. XXI
No full textA morte faz parte da vida: ela dita o fim da existência de uma pessoa. No entanto, por outro lado, determina também o início de todo o procedimento de transmissão do património que outrora pertencia ao de cujus.
A morte assume-se, assim, como um facto com relevância jurídica, que extingue a personalidade jurídica, com o qual importa determinar a quem caberão os direitos, bens e situações jurídicas que pertenciam ao falecido. Como ilustra Pereira Coelho, “ (…) com a morte do de cuius, as relações jurídicas transmissíveis de que ele era sujeito se desenlaçam da sua esfera jurídica. (…) Estas relações desligam-se, desprendem-se do de cuius; a sua titularidade, a relação de pertinência que as ligava ao de cuius, com ele morre, quebra-se. Mas elas não se extinguem; ficam predispostas a ser adquiridas por outras pessoas”.
Assim, com a ocorrência da morte, abre-se a sucessão e torna-se necessário determinar quem serão os sucessores do falecido. Pode acontecer que aqueles que, à partida, iriam assumir essa posição, sejam depois afastados da sucessão, por terem praticado factos vexatórios contra o autor da sucessão, seus familiares mais próximos ou contra o seu testamento. Estes indivíduos serão, então, Indignos ou Deserdados.
A análise dos institutos da Indignidade e da Deserdação constituí o objeto do nosso estudo. Ao longo deste trabalho, propomo-nos, então, a analisar a situação daqueles que, por terem praticado certos factos, não assumirão a posição de sucessores que, em princípio, ocupariam.
Apesar de cumprirem o mesmo objectivo, o afastamento de um certo sucessível de uma concreta sucessão, a Indignidade e a Deserdação são diferentes entre si e são exactamente estas diferenças que pretendemos abordar: a natureza, âmbito de aplicação, modo de actuação e efeitos de cada uma, não esquecendo como se articulam dois institutos que são tão idênticos.
A generalidade da doutrina costuma assinalar um certo imobilismo ao Direito das Sucessões e, efectivamente, verifica-se que as normas relativas à Indignidade e Deserdação pouco ou nada foram alteradas, pelo que a doutrina reclama novas soluções. Contudo, recentemente, assistimos a uma tímida alteração do legislador no âmbito da indignidade, porém, existem ainda muitos outros pormenores que requerem uma pronúncia por parte do legislador.
Pretendemos, assim, dar um contributo, mesmo que pequeno, para clarificar estes regimes.Death is a part of life: It determines the end of the existence of a person. However, on the other hand, it also determines the beginning of the entire process of the heritage transference which once belonged to the deceased.
Therefore, death assumes itself as a legal fact that extinguishes the legal personality, with which is important to determine who will assume the rights, assets and legal situations that once belonged to the deceased. As shown by Pereira Coelho “(…) with the death of the de cuius, the transmissible juridical relationships that were his are detached from his juridical sphere. (…) These relations disconnect, detach themselves from the de cuius; his ownership, the relation of belonging that bound them to the de cuius, dies with him, is broken. But they do not die out; [they] are predisposed to be acquired by other people”.
With the occurrence of death, the succession is opened and it becomes necessary to determine who will be the deceased successors. It may happen that those who would assume that position will then be withdrawn from the succession, because they committed vexatious facts against the succession author, his closest relatives or against his will. These individuals are the unworthy or the disinherited.
The object of our study is the analysis of the institutes of the Indignity and the Disinheritance. Throughout this work, we will examine the situation of those who, because they have practiced certain facts, will not assume the position of successor that they would have, if it weren’t for those actions.
Although they both have the same goal, to remove a certain successive from a concrete succession, the Indignity and the Disinheritance are different among them, and there are exactly these differences that we want to approach: the nature, application range, functioning mode and the effects of each one, without forgetting how two institutes that are so identical are articulated.
The majority of the doctrine tends to point out a certain immobilization of Succession Law and, actually, it is ascertain that the norms related to the Indignity and the Disinheritance haven’t been substantially modified, that’s why the doctrine requires new solutions. However, recently, we witnessed a timid modification in the Indignity norms; however, there are still many more details which require an intervention by the legislator
Therefore, we intend to give a contribution, even if small, to clarify these regimes
A indignidade e a deserdação : uma perspetiva do Séc. XXI
No full textA morte faz parte da vida: ela dita o fim da existência de uma pessoa. No entanto, por outro lado, determina também o início de todo o procedimento de transmissão do património que outrora pertencia ao de cujus.
A morte assume-se, assim, como um facto com relevância jurídica, que extingue a personalidade jurídica, com o qual importa determinar a quem caberão os direitos, bens e situações jurídicas que pertenciam ao falecido. Como ilustra Pereira Coelho, “ (…) com a morte do de cuius, as relações jurídicas transmissíveis de que ele era sujeito se desenlaçam da sua esfera jurídica. (…) Estas relações desligam-se, desprendem-se do de cuius; a sua titularidade, a relação de pertinência que as ligava ao de cuius, com ele morre, quebra-se. Mas elas não se extinguem; ficam predispostas a ser adquiridas por outras pessoas”.
Assim, com a ocorrência da morte, abre-se a sucessão e torna-se necessário determinar quem serão os sucessores do falecido. Pode acontecer que aqueles que, à partida, iriam assumir essa posição, sejam depois afastados da sucessão, por terem praticado factos vexatórios contra o autor da sucessão, seus familiares mais próximos ou contra o seu testamento. Estes indivíduos serão, então, Indignos ou Deserdados.
A análise dos institutos da Indignidade e da Deserdação constituí o objeto do nosso estudo. Ao longo deste trabalho, propomo-nos, então, a analisar a situação daqueles que, por terem praticado certos factos, não assumirão a posição de sucessores que, em princípio, ocupariam.
Apesar de cumprirem o mesmo objectivo, o afastamento de um certo sucessível de uma concreta sucessão, a Indignidade e a Deserdação são diferentes entre si e são exactamente estas diferenças que pretendemos abordar: a natureza, âmbito de aplicação, modo de actuação e efeitos de cada uma, não esquecendo como se articulam dois institutos que são tão idênticos.
A generalidade da doutrina costuma assinalar um certo imobilismo ao Direito das Sucessões e, efectivamente, verifica-se que as normas relativas à Indignidade e Deserdação pouco ou nada foram alteradas, pelo que a doutrina reclama novas soluções. Contudo, recentemente, assistimos a uma tímida alteração do legislador no âmbito da indignidade, porém, existem ainda muitos outros pormenores que requerem uma pronúncia por parte do legislador.
Pretendemos, assim, dar um contributo, mesmo que pequeno, para clarificar estes regimes.Death is a part of life: It determines the end of the existence of a person. However, on the other hand, it also determines the beginning of the entire process of the heritage transference which once belonged to the deceased.
Therefore, death assumes itself as a legal fact that extinguishes the legal personality, with which is important to determine who will assume the rights, assets and legal situations that once belonged to the deceased. As shown by Pereira Coelho “(…) with the death of the de cuius, the transmissible juridical relationships that were his are detached from his juridical sphere. (…) These relations disconnect, detach themselves from the de cuius; his ownership, the relation of belonging that bound them to the de cuius, dies with him, is broken. But they do not die out; [they] are predisposed to be acquired by other people”.
With the occurrence of death, the succession is opened and it becomes necessary to determine who will be the deceased successors. It may happen that those who would assume that position will then be withdrawn from the succession, because they committed vexatious facts against the succession author, his closest relatives or against his will. These individuals are the unworthy or the disinherited.
The object of our study is the analysis of the institutes of the Indignity and the Disinheritance. Throughout this work, we will examine the situation of those who, because they have practiced certain facts, will not assume the position of successor that they would have, if it weren’t for those actions.
Although they both have the same goal, to remove a certain successive from a concrete succession, the Indignity and the Disinheritance are different among them, and there are exactly these differences that we want to approach: the nature, application range, functioning mode and the effects of each one, without forgetting how two institutes that are so identical are articulated.
The majority of the doctrine tends to point out a certain immobilization of Succession Law and, actually, it is ascertain that the norms related to the Indignity and the Disinheritance haven’t been substantially modified, that’s why the doctrine requires new solutions. However, recently, we witnessed a timid modification in the Indignity norms; however, there are still many more details which require an intervention by the legislator
Therefore, we intend to give a contribution, even if small, to clarify these regimes
A indignidade e a deserdação : uma perspetiva do Séc. XXI
No full textA morte faz parte da vida: ela dita o fim da existência de uma pessoa. No entanto, por outro lado, determina também o início de todo o procedimento de transmissão do património que outrora pertencia ao de cujus.
A morte assume-se, assim, como um facto com relevância jurídica, que extingue a personalidade jurídica, com o qual importa determinar a quem caberão os direitos, bens e situações jurídicas que pertenciam ao falecido. Como ilustra Pereira Coelho, “ (…) com a morte do de cuius, as relações jurídicas transmissíveis de que ele era sujeito se desenlaçam da sua esfera jurídica. (…) Estas relações desligam-se, desprendem-se do de cuius; a sua titularidade, a relação de pertinência que as ligava ao de cuius, com ele morre, quebra-se. Mas elas não se extinguem; ficam predispostas a ser adquiridas por outras pessoas”.
Assim, com a ocorrência da morte, abre-se a sucessão e torna-se necessário determinar quem serão os sucessores do falecido. Pode acontecer que aqueles que, à partida, iriam assumir essa posição, sejam depois afastados da sucessão, por terem praticado factos vexatórios contra o autor da sucessão, seus familiares mais próximos ou contra o seu testamento. Estes indivíduos serão, então, Indignos ou Deserdados.
A análise dos institutos da Indignidade e da Deserdação constituí o objeto do nosso estudo. Ao longo deste trabalho, propomo-nos, então, a analisar a situação daqueles que, por terem praticado certos factos, não assumirão a posição de sucessores que, em princípio, ocupariam.
Apesar de cumprirem o mesmo objectivo, o afastamento de um certo sucessível de uma concreta sucessão, a Indignidade e a Deserdação são diferentes entre si e são exactamente estas diferenças que pretendemos abordar: a natureza, âmbito de aplicação, modo de actuação e efeitos de cada uma, não esquecendo como se articulam dois institutos que são tão idênticos.
A generalidade da doutrina costuma assinalar um certo imobilismo ao Direito das Sucessões e, efectivamente, verifica-se que as normas relativas à Indignidade e Deserdação pouco ou nada foram alteradas, pelo que a doutrina reclama novas soluções. Contudo, recentemente, assistimos a uma tímida alteração do legislador no âmbito da indignidade, porém, existem ainda muitos outros pormenores que requerem uma pronúncia por parte do legislador.
Pretendemos, assim, dar um contributo, mesmo que pequeno, para clarificar estes regimes.Death is a part of life: It determines the end of the existence of a person. However, on the other hand, it also determines the beginning of the entire process of the heritage transference which once belonged to the deceased.
Therefore, death assumes itself as a legal fact that extinguishes the legal personality, with which is important to determine who will assume the rights, assets and legal situations that once belonged to the deceased. As shown by Pereira Coelho “(…) with the death of the de cuius, the transmissible juridical relationships that were his are detached from his juridical sphere. (…) These relations disconnect, detach themselves from the de cuius; his ownership, the relation of belonging that bound them to the de cuius, dies with him, is broken. But they do not die out; [they] are predisposed to be acquired by other people”.
With the occurrence of death, the succession is opened and it becomes necessary to determine who will be the deceased successors. It may happen that those who would assume that position will then be withdrawn from the succession, because they committed vexatious facts against the succession author, his closest relatives or against his will. These individuals are the unworthy or the disinherited.
The object of our study is the analysis of the institutes of the Indignity and the Disinheritance. Throughout this work, we will examine the situation of those who, because they have practiced certain facts, will not assume the position of successor that they would have, if it weren’t for those actions.
Although they both have the same goal, to remove a certain successive from a concrete succession, the Indignity and the Disinheritance are different among them, and there are exactly these differences that we want to approach: the nature, application range, functioning mode and the effects of each one, without forgetting how two institutes that are so identical are articulated.
The majority of the doctrine tends to point out a certain immobilization of Succession Law and, actually, it is ascertain that the norms related to the Indignity and the Disinheritance haven’t been substantially modified, that’s why the doctrine requires new solutions. However, recently, we witnessed a timid modification in the Indignity norms; however, there are still many more details which require an intervention by the legislator
Therefore, we intend to give a contribution, even if small, to clarify these regimes
Data_Sheet_1_Upcycling post-harvest biomass residues from native European Lupinus species: from straws and pod shells production to nutritive value and alkaloids content for ruminant animals.pdf
No full textThe production of Lupinus seeds for food and feed is increasing worldwide, which results in large amounts of post-harvest biomass residues, considered of low value and left in the field to be burned or incorporated in the soil. To valorize these agricultural wastes, this work aimed to assess their potential as an alternative feed for ruminants. Thus, the production yield, nutritive value, and alkaloid content of straws and pod shells from three native European Lupinus species, L. albus ‘Estoril’ (white), L. angustifolius ‘Tango’ (narrow-leafed), and L. luteus ‘Cardiga’ (yellow), cultivated in two locations, were evaluated. The dry matter (DM) yield of straws and pod shells were the highest for L. albus ‘Estoril’ (4.10 t ha−1) and the lowest for L. angustifolius ‘Tango’ (1.78 t ha−1), suggesting a poor adaptation of narrow-leafed lupin to the particularly dry and warm agronomic year. Despite species-specific differences, lupin biomass residues presented higher crude protein (53.0–68.9 g kg−1 DM) and lignin (103–111 g kg−1 DM) content than cereal straws usually used in ruminant feeding, thus resulting in higher metabolizable energy (6.43–6.58 MJ kg−1 DM) content. In vitro digestibility was similar among lupin species (47.7–50.6%) and higher in pod shells (53.7%) than in straws (44.6%). Lupinus albus ‘Estoril’ and L. luteus ‘Cardiga’ presented considerable amounts of alkaloids in straws (23.9 and 119 mg kg−1 DM) and pod shells (20.5 and 298 mg kg−1 DM), while no alkaloids were detected in L. angustifolius ‘Tango’ biomass residues. Considering the combined production of straw and pod shells per lupin species, it is anticipated that lupin biomass residues produced per ha can fulfill 85% of the energy and nearly 50% of protein requirements of a flock of 4 to 9 dry and mid-pregnancy sheep with 50 kg body weight for one year. No negative effects on small (ovine) and large (bovine) ruminant species due to alkaloids are expected, even if biomass residues are consumed at up to 85% DM intake. The large production yield along with its nutritive value unveils the potential of lupin biomass residues valorization as alternative fodder for ruminants, promoting sustainability under a circular economy approach.</p
DataSheet_1_Insights from the yield, protein production, and detailed alkaloid composition of white (Lupinus albus), narrow-leafed (Lupinus angustifolius), and yellow (Lupinus luteus) lupin cultivars in the Mediterranean region.pdf
No full textIntroductionLupins and other legumes have been considered as alternative plant-based protein sources to soybeans for both humans and livestock. Furthermore, they can contribute to more sustainable agricultural systems. The productivity and chemical composition of legumes is highly variable between species, cultivars, and with the edaphoclimatic conditions.MethodsThis work evaluated the adaptability of seven Lupinus cultivars in two different sowing locations, during two consecutive years, through the characterization of their seed, as a means of investigating their suitability to be used as a source of food and/or feed.Results and discussionLupinus angustifolius cv. Tango and Lupinus luteus cv. Acos were the most stable genotypes across the environments when considering the seed and protein production, while L. luteus cv. Alburquerque and L. luteus cv. Mister showed less variation in the total alkaloid content across the environments. The edaphoclimatic conditions affected seed and protein yields, as higher rainfall resulted in high productivity. The lower temperatures observed in the first year at both locations caused a reduction in the production of alkaloids in L. luteus cv. Acos and Cardiga. Due to the high alkaloid content of some of the studied cultivars their use as food or feed can pose some safety concerns. However, these cultivars can have high levels of resistance to herbivore and insect attacks, which can be of the utmost importance for the use of these crops for recovering poor or exhausted soils.</p
Agronomic, Nutritional Traits, and Alkaloids of <i>Lupinus albus</i>, <i>Lupinus angustifolius</i> and <i>Lupinus luteus</i> Genotypes: Effect of Sowing Dates and Locations
No full textLupins (Lupinus spp.) are legumes with high relevance
for the sustainability of agricultural systems as they improve the
soil quality, namely, through the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen,
and have good adaptability to different climates and soil conditions.
Besides, they possess high nutritive value, especially due to the
high protein content of the seeds. Nevertheless, the plants’
productivity and metabolism can be influenced by the genotype, the
edaphoclimatic conditions, and the sowing practices. In this work,
the effect of edaphoclimatic conditions and sowing dates on the productivity,
nutritional factors, and alkaloids of the seeds of L. albus cv. Estoril, L. angustifolius cv. Tango, and L. luteus cv. Cardiga
was evaluated. High variability in the seeds and protein productions,
nutritional traits, and alkaloid content related to the species was
observed, along with a significant effect of the location. Lupinus albus cv. Estoril showed a good compromise
between productivity and low alkaloid content, being an interesting
genotype for food and feed use in the conditions of this trial
Are hospitalized or ambulatory patients with heart failure treated in accordance with European Society of Cardiology guidelines? Evidence from 12,440 patients of the ESC Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.
No full textAimsTo evaluate how recommendations of European guidelines regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for heart failure (HF) are adopted in clinical practice.Methods and resultsThe ESC-HF Long-Term Registry is a prospective, observational study conducted in 211 Cardiology Centres of 21 European and Mediterranean countries, members of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). From May 2011 to April 2013, a total of 12 440 patients were enrolled, 40.5% with acute HF and 59.5% with chronic HF. Intravenous treatments for acute HF were heterogeneously administered, irrespective of guideline recommendations. In chronic HF, with reduced EF, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs) were used in 92.2, 92.7, and 67.0% of patients, respectively. When reasons for non-adherence were considered, the real rate of undertreatment accounted for 3.2, 2.3, and 5.4% of the cases, respectively. About 30% of patients received the target dosage of these drugs, but a documented reason for not achieving the target dosage was reported in almost two-thirds of them. The more relevant reasons for non-implantation of a device, when clinically indicated, were related to doctor uncertainties on the indication, patient refusal, or logistical/cost issues.ConclusionThis pan-European registry shows that, while in patients with acute HF, a large heterogeneity of treatments exists, drug treatment of chronic HF can be considered largely adherent to recommendations of current guidelines, when the reasons for non-adherence are taken into account. Observations regarding the real possibility to adhere fully to current guidelines in daily clinical practice should be seriously considered when clinical practice guidelines have to be written. © 2013 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2013. For permissions please email: [email protected]
Erratum to: The Intensive Care Global Study on Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (ICâGLOSSARI): a multicenter, multinational, 14-day inception cohort study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2016), 42, 5, (953), 10.1007/s00134-016-4317-4)
No full textIn both the original publication (DOI 10.1007/s00134-015-4206-2) and the first erratum (DOI 10.1007/s00134-016-4317-4), the members of the IC-GLOSSARI Investigators and the ESICM Trials Group were provided in such a way that they could not be indexed as collaborators on PubMed. The publisher apologizes for these errors and is pleased to list the members of the groups here: (Table presented.)
Sex- and age-related differences in the management and outcomes of chronic heart failure: an analysis of patients from the ESC HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry
No full textAims: This study aimed to assess age- and sex-related differences in management and 1-year risk for all-cause mortality and hospitalization in chronic heart failure (HF) patients. Methods and results: Of 16 354 patients included in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry, 9428 chronic HF patients were analysed [median age: 66 years; 28.5% women; mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 37%]. Rates of use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) were high (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists: 85.7%, 88.7% and 58.8%, respectively). Crude GDMT utilization rates were lower in women than in men (all differences: P ≤ 0.001), and GDMT use became lower with ageing in both sexes, at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. Sex was not an independent predictor of GDMT prescription; however, age >75 years was a significant predictor of GDMT underutilization. Rates of all-cause mortality were lower in women than in men (7.1% vs. 8.7%; P = 0.015), as were rates of all-cause hospitalization (21.9% vs. 27.3%; P 75 years. Conclusions: There was a decline in GDMT use with advanced age in both sexes. Sex was not an independent predictor of GDMT or adverse outcomes. However, age >75 years independently predicted lower GDMT use and higher all-cause mortality in patients with LVEF ≤45%
