» The Method of Proceeding in Administrative Recourse and in the Removal or Transfer of Pastors
» Recourse Against Administrative Decrees
What is established in the canons of this section concerning decrees must be applied to all singular administrative acts which are given in the external forum outside a trial excepting those which have been issued by the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council.
§1. Whenever a person considers himself or herself aggrieved by a decree, it is particularly desirable that the person and the author of the decree avoid any contention and take care to seek an equitable solution by common counsel, possibly using the mediation and effort of wise persons to avoid or settle the controversy in a suitable way.
§2. The conference of bishops can determine that each diocese establish in a stable manner an office or council whose function is to seek and suggest equitable solutions according to the norms determined by the conference. If the conference has not ordered this, however, the bishop can establish a council or office of this kind.
§3. The office or council mentioned in §2 is especially to be of assistance when the revocation of a decree has been requested according to the norm of can. 1734
and the time limits for making recourse have not elapsed. If recourse has been proposed against a decree, however, the superior who deals with the recourse is to urge the person making recourse and the author of the decree to seek a solution of this kind whenever he sees hope of a favorable outcome.
§1. Before proposing recourse a person must seek the revocation or emendation of the decree in writing from its author. When this petition is proposed, by that very fact suspension of the execution of the decree is also understood to be requested.
§2. The petition must be made within the peremptory period of ten useful days from the legitimate notification of the decree.
§3. The norms of §§1 and 2 are not valid:
1. for recourse proposed to a bishop against decrees issued by authorities subject to him;
2. for recourse proposed against a decree which decides a hierarchical recourse unless the bishop gave the decision;
3. for recourse proposed according to the norm of cann. 57 and 1735
If within thirty days after receiving the petition mentioned in can. 1734
the author of the decree communicates a new decree by which he either emends the earlier one or decides that the petition must be rejected, the time limits for making recourse run from the notification of the new decree. If the author makes no decision within the thirty days, however, the time limits run from the thirtieth day.
§1. In those matters in which hierarchical recourse suspends the execution of a decree, the petition mentioned in can. 1734
also has the same effect.
§2. In other cases, if the author of the decree has not decreed the suspension of execution within ten days after receiving the petition mentioned in can. 1734,
an interim suspension can be sought from his hierarchical superior who can decree a suspension only for grave reasons and always cautiously so that the salvation of souls suffers no harm.
§3. If the execution of the decree has been suspended according to the norm of §2 and recourse is proposed afterwards, the person who must deal with the recourse according to the norm of can. 1737,
§3 is to decide whether the suspension must be confirmed or revoked.
§4. If no recourse is proposed against the decree within the established time limit, the interim suspension of the execution given according to the norm of §§1 or 2 ceases by that very fact.
§1. A person who claims to have been aggrieved by a decree can make recourse for any just reason to the hierarchical superior of the one who issued the decree. The recourse can be proposed before the author of the decree who must transmit it immediately to the competent hierarchical superior.
§2. Recourse must be proposed within the peremptory time limit of fifteen useful days which in the cases mentioned in can. 1734,
§3 run from the day on which the decree was communicated; in other cases, however, they run according to the norm of can. 1735
§3. Nevertheless, even in cases in which recourse does not suspend the execution of the decree by the law itself and suspension has not been decreed according to the norm of can. 1736,
§2, the superior can order the execution to be suspended for a grave cause, yet cautiously so that the salvation of souls suffers no harm.
The person making recourse always has the right to use an advocate or procurator, but useless delays are to be avoided; indeed, a legal representative is to be appointed ex officio if the person making recourse lacks one and the superior thinks it necessary. Nevertheless, the superior always can order the person making recourse to be present in order to be questioned.
The superior who deals with the recourse, as the case warrants, is permitted not only to confirm the decree or declare it invalid but also to rescind or revoke it or, if it seems more expedient to the superior, to emend, replace, or modify it.
Page generated in 0.0059 seconds.