University Faculty
of Canon Law
www.iuscangreg.itCIC1983CCEONorms outside the two CodesResponses of the Apostolic SeeParticular LawProper law / statutesSources of past lawJurisprudenceInternational TreatiesWebsitesLiteraturePeriodica de re canonicaBibliografia canonisticaSearch enginesLinklistSitemapProfessorsFamous professors from the 20th century
Jurisprudence of the Apostolic Signatura in contentious-administrative cases
 
 

Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura
Decretum Congressus of 22.04.2015, Prot. N. 49273/14 CA


Petitioner Rev.dus X
Respondent Congeregatio de Institutione Catholica
Object Nominationis conrelatoris dissertationis ad laurem doctoralem obtinendam
Content Reiectionem in limine confirmandam esse.
Notes Cf. L’attività della Santa Sede 2015, p. 786.
Sources 
?
Legenda
 
Canons of the Code 1983
All the canons that are found in the in iure and in the in facto part of the decisions are reported in the sources.
The canons that constitute the main object of the decision or on which the decision sets out a principle of interpretation are reported in bold.
The canons of the 1983 Code are shown in italics:
- if they do not appear in the text of the decision but if the decision deals with them;
- if they correspond to canons of the 1917 Code, of which the decision (prior to 1983) deals.

Other sources
All the sources that are found in the in iure and in the in facto part of the decisions are reported.
LP Art. 76 § 4
Legal Summary
1. Quoties adversus reiectionem in limine a Secretario decretam recurratur, obiectum recursus ad Congressum tantum decretum eiusdem Secretarii est; quodsi nulla par adducatur ratio ad praefatum decretum submovendum, reiectio confirmanda est (in casu argumenta adducta mere speciosa apparent et ad meritum seu ad opportunitatem decisionis spectantia).1. Qualora si ricorra contro il rigetto in limine deciso dal Segretario, oggetto del ricorso al Congresso è solo il decreto del medesimo Segretario; che se poi non si adduca alcuna valida ragione per scalfire il menzionato decreto, il rigetto dev’essere confermato (nel caso gli argomenti addotti erano meramente speciosi e attinenti al merito ossia all’opportunità della decisione).
 German - French

Author of the legal summary (in Latin) and of the Italian version: © G. Paolo Montini