|Processes » The Contentious Trial » The Ordinary Contentious Trial » Challenging of the Sentence » Complaint of nullity against the sentence|
|Canon 1620.||A judgement is null with a nullity which cannot be remedied,
1° it was given by a judge who was absolutely non-competent;
2° it was given by a person who has no power to judge in the tribunal in which the case was decided;
3° the judge was compelled by force or grave fear to deliver judgement;
4° the trial took place without the judicial plea mentioned in can. 1501, or was not brought against some party as respondent;
5° it was given between parties of whom at least one has no right to stand before the court;
6° someone acted in another’s name without a lawful mandate;
7° the right of defence was denied to one or other party;
8° the controversy has not been even partially decided.
|Canon 1622.||A judgement is null with a nullity which is simply remediable, if:
1° contrary to the requirements of can. 1425, §1, it was not given by the lawful number of judges;
2° it does not contain the motives or reasons for the decision;
3° it lacks the signatures prescribed by the law;
4° it does not contain an indication of the year, month, day and place it was given;
5° it is founded on a judicial act which is null and whose nullity has not been remedied in accordance with can. 1619;
6° it was given against a party who, in accordance with can. 1593, §2, was lawfully absent.
|Processes » The Contentious Trial » The Ordinary Contentious Trial » Res Iudicata and Restitutio in Integrum » Restitutio in integrum|
|Canon 1645.||§1 Against a judgement which has become an adjudged matter there can be a total reinstatement, provided it is clearly established that the judgement was unjust.
§2 Injustice is not, however, considered clearly established unless:
1° the judgement is so based on evidence which is subsequently shown to be false, that without this evidence the dispositive part of the judgement could not be sustained;
2° documents are subsequently discovered by which new facts demanding a contrary decision are undoubtedly proven;
3° the judgement was given through the deceit of one party to the harm of the other;
4° a provision of a law which was not merely procedural was evidently neglected;
5° the judgement runs counter to a preceding decision which has become an adjudged matter.
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds.
Website code © 2020 (MIT License). Version 2.7.2 FAQ