1. Recursu adversus decretum reiectionis in Congressu latum proposito, Collegium non debet videre de ipsa legis violatione, sed tantummodo de illegitimitate actus impugnati: an scilicet recursus sit non destitutus quolibet legitimo fundamento.
2. Quam ob rem recursus ad Collegium non potest fieri cum iisdem, id est nullo adducto novo argumento. Haec admissio recursus, ex una parte videretur quaedam capitis diminutio Congressus, qui de facto impar semper fieret ad definitive decernendum super simplici fumo boni iuris recursus; ex altera parte decisio definitiva super hac quaestione semper deferenda esset Collegio. Haec admissio insuper celeritati processus administrativi officeret.
3. Congressus, perpensis novis argumentis a recurrente allatis, potest: a) vel admittere recursum ad Collegium contra suum reiectionis decretum, agnoscens non esse amplius manifestum defectum fundamenti; b) vel iterum reiicere recursum, declarando ipsum adhuc carere manifesto fundamento; c) vel, in dubio, remittere recursum ad Collegium, quod in eadem sessione decernere debet de illegitimitate vel minus decisionis impugnatae, nisi probationes causae videantur ulteriorem instructionem expostulare.
4. Collegio utcumque competit solvere dubium: An constet de iure recurrendi in casu, et consequenter de illegitimitate actus impugnati.
Cf. maximae prot. n. 1123/69 CA. | 1. When recourse has been lodged against a decree of rejection rendered in the Congress, the College is not to judge the violation of law itself, but only the illegitimacy of the act impugned: namely, whether or not the recourse is destitute of any legitimate foundation.
2. For this reason, recourse to the College cannot be made on the same [arguments], that is, with no new argument adduced. Such an admission of the recourse would, on the one hand, seem a kind of capitis diminutio of the Congress, which in fact would always prove unequal to deciding definitively on the mere fumus boni iuris of the recourse; on the other hand, the definitive decision on this question would always have to be referred to the College. Moreover, such an admission would impede the celerity of the administrative process.
3. The Congress, having weighed the new arguments adduced by the one making recourse, may: a) admit the recourse to the College against its own decree of rejection, acknowledging that the lack of foundation is no longer manifest; b) reject the recourse again, declaring that it still manifestly lacks foundation; or c) in case of doubt, remit the recourse to the College, which in the same session must decide on the illegitimacy or not of the decision impugned, unless the proofs of the case appear to demand further instruction.
4. In any event, it belongs to the College to resolve the dubium: Whether the right of recourse is established in the case, and consequently the illegitimacy of the act impugned.
Cf. the massime of Prot. n. 1123/69 CA. |
