Change of gound(s) at the appeal level an declaration of substantial conformity betwenn sentences
"This is what really happened recently in an appeal tribunal. The first instance tribunal had declared the marriage invalid on the ground of grave defect of discretion of judgment (c. 1095, 2°) on the part of respondent. But the appeal tribunal considered that ground inappropriate and changed i...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Print Article |
| Language: | Undetermined language |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Soc.
2006
|
| In: |
Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions
Year: 2006, Pages: 88-98 |
| IxTheo Classification: | SB Catholic Church law |
| Further subjects: | B
Catholic church Codex iuris canonici 1983. can. 1641, §1
B Cause of action B Catholic church Codex iuris canonici 1983. can. 1514, §1 B Catholic church Codex iuris canonici 1983. can. 1682, §2 B Marriage process B Ehenichtigkeitsverfahren B duplex sententia conformis B Catholic church Codex iuris canonici 1983. can. 1683 |
| Summary: | "This is what really happened recently in an appeal tribunal. The first instance tribunal had declared the marriage invalid on the ground of grave defect of discretion of judgment (c. 1095, 2°) on the part of respondent. But the appeal tribunal considered that ground inappropriate and changed it to "force and fear," lack of sufficient internal freedom (c. 1103), and rendered an affirmative decision on that ground. Then the same tribunal decreed substantial conformity between the two sentences claiming its justification on the basis of DC art. 291. Is this decree of the appeal tribunal really in conformity with the norm of DC art. 291? Furthermore, there is an unwritten policy practiced in the same appeal tribunal of returning an affirmative sentence to the first instance tribunal with the suggestion to change the ground on which it had already pronounced an affirmative decision to the one determined by the appeal tribunal. Is this policy legitimate?" |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions
|