Folia Theologica et Canonica 6. 28/20 (2017)

IUS CANONICUM - Kurt Martens, Hierarchical recourse as a dialogue between particular church and universal Church? Difficulties, challenges and opportunities

HIERARCHICAL RECOURSE AS A DIALOGUE BETWEEN PARTICULAR CHURCH.,. 85

( 1909-1989 )2" and Gommar Michiels ( 1890-1965)'" recognized the importance of administrative power, not as an accessory to the other powers, but as an independent power. This change and principle 7 for the revision of the 1917 code, calling for a better distinction between legislative, administrative and judicial power, made it possible to formulate canon 135 § 1 as it is.

Distinguishing between the various powers is important, but likewise, it is also important to know how the protection against administrative or executive power can be organized.

3. Three Possible Models

Usually three models are considered possibilities.'1 The first model is that of the “superior-judge” or the model of hierarchical recourse. In this system, the superior of the author of the administrative act is the judge. A second model is that of “single jurisdiction”: the ordinary judicial tribunal will resolve the conflict between a private person or a juridic person and the public administrative authority. This is the process that was known in canon law until 1908 as the ap- pellatio extrajudicialis or extrajudicial appeal. A third and final model is that 29 30 31

29 Mörsdorf, K., Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts auf Grund des Codex Iuris Canonici, I: Einleitung, Allgemeiner Teil und Personenrecht, Paderborn 1964. 316-317. Mörsdorf distinguishes between three functions of jurisdiction: legislation, jurisprudence and administration. See at 316: “Es sind drei Funktionen der Hirtengewalt zu unterscheiden: Gesetzgebung, Rechtsprechung und Verwaltung.” Administration is then further subdivided: “Die verwaltende Tätigkeit ist näherin zu unterscheiden in eine freiwillige und eine zwangsmäßige.”

30 Michiels, G., De potestate ordinaria et delegate: Commentarius tituli V libri II Codicis Juris Canonici, Paris 1964. 49: “Pro momento hoc unum animadvertere juvat quod ad earn non so- lummodo pertinent actus potestatis legislativae, judiciariae, coactivae, qui explicite commemo- rantur in can. 335 § 1, sed etiamvero actus potestatis administrativae vere auctoritativae, sub qua tarnen regulariter non comprehenduntur munera «nudum ministerium» aut «meram administra- tionem» involventia, neque munera «meram Visitationen!» aut «meram vigilantiam» secumfe- rentia.”

31 Coughlin, J. J., Administrative Justice at the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and the United States Supreme Court: A Comparative Study, Roma 1994. 9-12. Coughlin, J. J., The Historical Development and Current Procedural Norms of Administrative Recourse to the Apostolic Signatura, in Periodica 90 (2001) 457—461. Gordon, L, De tribunalihus administrativis propositis a Commissione Codici IC. recognoscendo et suffragatis ab Episcoporum Synodo, in Periodica 57 (1968) 613-624. Gordon, I., De iustitia administrativa ecclesiastica, turn trans- acto tempore turn hodierno, in Periodica 61 (1972) 253-254. Graziani, E., Lezioni di giustizia amministrativa, Città del Vaticano 1997. 12. Labandeira, E., Tratado de Derecho Administrative Canonico, Pamplona 1993. 473-482. Moodie, M. R., Defense of Rights: Developing New Procedural Norms, in The Jurist Al (1987) 426-428. d’Ostilio, F., Il diritto amministrativo della Chiesa, Città del Vaticano 1996. 389-391. Staffa, O., Dìssertationes de administratione iustitiae in ecclesia, II: De Supremo Tribunali Administrative seu de Secunda Sectione Supremi Tribunalis Signaturae Apostoliche, in Periodica 61 (1972) 21-22, footnote 3.