Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Kanonistów Polskich

Vol. 30 No. 33 (2020)

Articles

The Problem of Retroactivity of Can. 1098 in the Judgment of the c. Erlebach of 17 May 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32077/skp.2020.33.1-3  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2020-06-30

Abstract

The presented study is a commentary to the judgment of the c. Erlebach of 17 May 2018. The main interest of the Author has become only one thread of this the Rota’s judgment, which is the problem of retroactivity of the can. 1098. In this judgment, ponens argued for the origin of this regulation from positive law, and therefore its non-retrocativeness. In the final remarks, the Author highlighted the specificity of the arguments Rota’s auditor. In his reflection over can. 1098, based on both dogmatic and comparative analysis, showed that the error resulting from deceptive action is not a substantive error, but an accidental one. Therefore, in his opinion, can. 1098 comes from positive law.

References

  1. Dzierżon, Ginter. 2004. „Ratio legis kan. 1098 KPK oraz problem jego retroaktywności.” W Wojciech Góralski, i Ginter Dzierżon, Nieważność małżeństwa zawartego pod wpływem podstępu, 129-244. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo UKSW. [Google Scholar]
  2. Dzierżon, Ginter. 2017. „Wpływ podstępu na ważność aktu prawnego (kan. 125 § 2 KPK).” Prawo Kanoniczne 60, nr 1:23-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21697/pk.2017.60.1.02 [Google Scholar]
  3. Dzierżon, Ginter. 2018. „Wpływ błędu i ignorancji co do istoty aktu prawnego na jego nieważność (kan. 126 KPK).” Prawo Kanoniczne 61, nr 1:3-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21697/pk.2018.61.1.01 [Google Scholar]
  4. Franchetto, Fabio. 2011. «Error in persona» (can. 1097 § 1). Il dibattito sul concetto di persona nella trattazione dell’error facti. Analisi della dottrina e della giurisprudenza. Roma: Gregorian University Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ghisoni, Linda. 2004. “La decezione dolosa (can. 1098) secondo la giurisprudenza della Rota Romana: rilevi sistematici.” Quaderni dello Studio Rotale 14:63-84. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ghisoni, Linda. 2005. “La questione della retroattività o meno del can. 1098 secondo la giurisprudenza rotale.” Quaderni dello Studio Rotale 15:123-50. [Google Scholar]
  7. Michiels, Gommarus. 1955. Principia generalia de personis in Ecclesia. Parisiis–Tornaci–Romae: Typis Societatis S. Joannis Evengelistae Desclée et Soci. [Google Scholar]
  8. Nogara, Marco F. 2017. La qualitas nel can. 1098 CIC: determinazioni giurisprudenziali. Roma: EDUSC. [Google Scholar]
  9. Serres López de Guereñu, Roberto. 1997. «Error recidens in condicionem sine qua non» (Can. 126). Estudio histórico-jurídico. Roma: Gregorian University Press. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.