Irremediable nullity of a decree issued by a first instance tribunal
"A first instance collegiate tribunal rendered an affirmative decision on the ground of grave defect of discretion of judgment on the part of petitioner. This decision was ratified by decree by the second instance tribunal of appeal. The respondent had never received any citation or communicati...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Print Article |
| Language: | Undetermined language |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Soc.
2009
|
| In: |
Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions
Year: 2009, Pages: 146-153 |
| IxTheo Classification: | SB Catholic Church law |
| Further subjects: | B
Procedural law
B Catholic church Codex iuris canonici 1983. can. 1620, §7 B Nullity B Catholic church Codex iuris canonici 1983. can. 1620, §1 B Ehenichtigkeitsverfahren B Incurability B Catholic church Codex iuris canonici 1983. can. 1622, §1 B Judgment |
| Summary: | "A first instance collegiate tribunal rendered an affirmative decision on the ground of grave defect of discretion of judgment on the part of petitioner. This decision was ratified by decree by the second instance tribunal of appeal. The respondent had never received any citation or communication from either tribunal from the beginning because the petitioner had deliberately given the wrong address of the respondent. The respondent complains to the first instance tribunal of this deceptive behavior of the petitioner. Because the respondent brought this injustice to the notice of the first instance tribunal, the defender of the bond of that tribunal lodged a plaint of irremediable nullity against the first instance sentence. The original ponens being legitimately impeded, the substitute ponens (not the college) declared the first instance sentence and the subsequent decree of confirmation irremediably null on the ground of violation of the respondent 's right of defence (c. 1620, 7°). Considering the case still under discussion, the first instance tribunal carried out a supplementary instruction of the case and then pronounced a negative decision in first instance. The petitioner lodged before the appeal court a plaint of nullity against the decree which had declared the first two decisions irremediably null claiming that the respondent was aware of the process. The appeal court responded negatively to this plaint of nullity affirming that the respondent was unaware of the trial from the beginning. The petitioner's advocate presented a plaint of nullity against the negative sentence given by the first instance tribunal on the ground of absolute incompetence of the judges. The appeal tribunal dismissed this plaint with a negative decision. The petitioner's advocate then lodged another plaint of remediable nullity against the decree declaring the original two sentences irremediably null on the ground that the said decision was not rendered by the college of Judges but by the sole substitute judge and that the same decision was not pronounced by the original ponens. The appeal court again ruled negatively on the complaint of nullity. The questions now asked are: Was everything in this case done in accord with the norm of law? Was there anything radically wrong in what the first and second instance tribunals did in this case after the respondent brought to the attention of the court the deliberate manipulation of the process by the petitioner?" |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions
|