Uselessness of an Expert Opinion in Cases of the Nullity of Marriage Based on Can. 1678 § 3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law

Grzegorz Leszczyński

doi:10.18290/rnp24343.5

Published : 2024-11-27

Vol. 34 No. 3 (2024)

Uselessness of an Expert Opinion in Cases of the Nullity of Marriage Based on Can. 1678 § 3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law

Grzegorz Leszczyński

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4189-5165

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18290/rnp24343.5

Abstract

The article attempts to answer the question: is the opinion of a court expert always necessary, or can it prove useless in certain types of cases or circumstances? It seems that there are situations from which it follows that under some circumstances the opinion of an expert will not contribute anything to the case. This is the case in reality, both when the judge is convinced of a negative sentence and when he or she is convinced of an affirmative sentence. Then the judge may waive the opinion of an expert with the proviso that this will not be detrimental to the party.

Keywords:

marriage, opinion, expert, nullity

Details

References

Statistics

Authors

Download files

pdf

Altmetric indicators

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Arroba Conde Manuel J., La prova peritale e le problematiche processualistiche, in: L’incapacità di intendere e di volere nel diritto matrimoniale canonico, Città del Vaticano 2000, p. 383-410.

García Failde Juan J., Valoración jurídica de la prueba pericial psicológico/psiquiátrica, in: Incapacitad consensual para las obligaciones matrimoniales, Pamplona 1991, p. 285-318.

Gianesin Bruno, Perizia e capacità consensuale nel matrimonio canonico, Padova 1989.

Giussani Tommaso, Discrezionalità del giudice nella valutazione delle prove, Città del Vaticano 1977.

Grocholewski Zenon, Il giudice ecclesiastico di fronte alle perizie neuropsichiatriche e psicologiche, “Apollinaris” 60 (1987), p. 183-203.

Joannes Paulus II, Allocutio ad Praelatos Auditores, 26.01.1984, AAS 76 (1984), p. 643-649.

Joannes Paulus II, Allocutio ad Rotae Romanae Auditores, 5.02.1987, AAS 79 (1987), p. 1453-1459.

Joannes Paulus II, Allocutio ad Rotae Romanae Auditores, 25.01.1988, AAS 80 (1988), p. 1178-1185.

Leszczyński Grzegorz, La prova perziale come uno dei fondamentali mezzi di prova nelle cause matrimoniali per immaturità affettiva, “Apollinaris” 74 (2001), p. 529-548.

Nowakowski Bartosz, Biegły w sprawach o nieważność małżeństwa spowodowanych zaburzeniami nastroju – trzy objaśnienia, “Ius Matrimoniale” 33 (2022), no. 2, p. 115-135.

Paździor Stanisław, Przyczyny poważnego braku rozeznania oceniającego w świetle kan. 1095 n. 2, Lublin 2004.

Paul VI, Allocutio ad Praelatos Auditores, 12.02.1968, AAS 60 (1968), p. 202-207.

Pius XII, Allocutio adstantibus Praelatis Auditoribus, 3.10.1941, AAS 33 (1941), p. 421-426.

Pius XII, Allocutio ad Prealatos Sacrae Romanae Rotae, 1.10.1942, AAS 34 (1942), p. 338-343.

Profita Michela, L’incidenza della depressione nelle cause canoniche di nullità del matrimonio: profili medico-legali e probatori, Roma 2006.

Signatura Apostolica, Decretum 28252/97, “Periodica” 87 (1998), p. 619-622.

Stepulak Marian Z., Osobowy wymiar małżeństwa kanonicznego jako punkt odniesienia w pracy biegłego psychologa, “Ius Matrimoniale” 8 (2003), p. 179-191.

Versaldi Giuseppe, L’oggettività delle prove in campo psichico, Brescia 1981.