Canon law - appeals going from one diocese to another same-level diocese - need sources

  • Thread starter Thread starter chevalier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chevalier

Guest
I basically need to provide an example for the fact that the first instance and the second instance courts set up under canon law are not always different in grade, but that sometimes one archdiocese sends appeals to another, so that effectively the first instance and the second instance are the same grade, but merely one hears appeals from the other because it was so arranged.

The reason I need this kind of sources is pretty secular: it’s an administrative appeal from the result of a professional law test and I need an example to prove that the appellate jurisdiction being of the same grade (or actually the same authority but hearing an appeal from itself, as in some cases in my native administrative law) does not preclude it from being a “second instance” and thus there are still two instances. As this kind of administrative appeal device is new in my country, there aren’t so many native sources, while cooperative law will do, especially if we take a jurisdiction with very old legal traditions as well as a history of some serious operation of law on the highest level of professionalism, as is the case with canon law. 🙂

If I succeed in this appeal, it will prevent me from one year delay in my professional career, which is why this is so important to me. It would be great if some Vatican or diocesan document could be found (Canon Law does not literally treat about this from what I see in the section about appellate tribunals, although I will hold on to Can. 1438 §2). I am still looking, of course, but I need to lodge the appeal before the end of Monday.

The older the source, the better, by the way. For now, I’ve seen that the same provision as can. 1438 §2 was in can. 1594 §2. That’s a start, but neither is too explicit or proves it’s normal to have same-grade (same grade of ecclesiastic see) appellate jurisdictions.

Thanks in advance for all help. 🙂
 
The obvious example is where the Roman Rota tries the first instance. In that case, the second instance is also to the Roman Rota, but to a different panel of three judges.
 
I took a look at the old annulment instruction (1936 Provida Mater), but it seems to use the term “grade” in a way contrary to what you want:

Art. 128 § 1. A matrimonial case which has been decided by one tribunal can never be decided again by another tribunal of the same grade, even though there are new evidence or documents, but only a tribunal of higher instance can take cognizance of it again, after an appeal has been made (Cod. Com., 16 June, 1931).

§ 2. The above provision is to be understood as applicable if there is question really of the same case, that is, the same marriage and the same ground for nullity.

The 1931 Code Commission reference is:

Doubt: Whether, in virtue of c. 1989, the same matrimonial case which has been decided by one tribunal can be decided again by a tribunal of the same grade.

Response: In the negative.
 
Just Lurking, good call about the Roman Rota.
Wikipedia also says that a case tried before an Archdiocese may be appealed to another Archdiocese, that this is a common arrangement, but implies that a case before a suffragan diocese may only appeal to the metropolitan.
 
I’m back!
The Catholic Encyclopedia says similarly in its article. Scroll down to “Classification of Ecclesiastical Courts”, and go to the second paragraph. It gives that the Archdiocese of Prague hears appeals for Vienna and Salzburg, Prague appeals to Ohmutz (sp?), and Olmutz (sp?) appeals to Vienna.
Similar set up in Latin America, and it cites Pope Leo XIII, “Trans Oceanum”, 18 April, 1897. I have been unable to locate that encyclical though. It is not on the Vatican website.
 
This isn’t a canon law example, but an civil appellate law example…in the United States circuit courts of appeal (as well as most state intermediate appellate courts), appeals are assigned to panels of the court. A losing party can then ask for a rehearing en banc by the full court.
 
PacoG said:
This isn’t a canon law example, but an civil appellate law example…in the United States circuit courts of appeal (as well as most state intermediate appellate courts), appeals are assigned to panels of the court. A losing party can then ask for a rehearing en banc by the full court.
Click to expand...
Is it the discretion of the losing party to determine whether the appeal goes to the full circuit panel first, or the Supreme Court?
 
In the U.S. all nullity cases are reviewed by another diocese’s tribunal as a court of second instance, before the declarations are final. Each diocese partners with another for this task.
 
Digitonomy said:
Is it the discretion of the losing party to determine whether the appeal goes to the full circuit panel first, or the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...
As I recall, the appeal goes to the full circuit court before the Supreme Court.
 
Thanks, everyone. 🙂 I actually managed to put together an argument by taking the current code and the 1917 code, showing they changed little and they expressly provided for the ability to designate courts as second instance, rather than erecting a ladder in which the appellate court must be of a higher stature than the one appealed from. I cited the example of two archdioceses here being each other’s second instance and also the example of the Roman Rota. From that I made the conclusion that instance was a processual concept only and that a ladder of statures of the courts was not inherent to it.

And then I actually managed to find that on the website of our chief administrative court, verdicts in which the court quashed both the original decision and the same authority’s decision made in second cognisance, were referred to as “quashed 1st and 2nd instance” or similar.

Let’s hope it goes well. This was my appeal against the result of the attorney traineeship entry test. I was 3 points short.

Oh, and I’ve just started learning more about your system. I’m just done with introduction to American law and I must say I like it much more than I would have supposed. I love the way your judges write. I actually write letters in a similar way and always have, but here the general customs are different. We’re more third person and less philosophical. There’s a lot of common sense shining through, which is often more difficult to find in civil law, where you can’t do much sometimes. Naturally, I know about the flaws too, but still. And it allows me to appreciate the good sides of the civil law better as well, hehe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top