Within the modern judiciary system, the final sentencing, to which the previous procedural activity is teleologically addressed, must be carried out in observance to existing particular formalities. Within the Roman law system nothing of the sort is expressly asserted, neither in the period of legis actiones (for which, the pronunciation of certa verba was generally expected), nor in the period of formulae (which witnessed the use of concepta verba, to be consolidated at the moment of the litis contestatio). For this reason, it is widely diffused within the doctrine, the belief that the judgment consisted in a dictum whatever it might have been, issued no one knows how, and in the presence of whom. In this article such orientation is subjected to criticism. If on one hand it is true that, from existing sources, there is no expressed testimony regarding the needs of the judge to adhere to the words of a precise form, it is also true, that scattered evidence exists, confirming the opinion that the sentencing was also a somehow solemn verbal act. In the postclassical age, the written form, was made mandatory.
Nell’ordinamento moderno la sentenza, cui tutta l’attività procedimentale pregressa è teleologicamente indirizzata, dev’essere redatta in osservanza di particolari formalità. Nel diritto romano non sembra espressamente attestato nulla del genere, né per l’epoca delle legis actiones (per le quali era in generale prevista la pronuncia di certa verba), né per l’epoca delle formule (le quali constavano pur sempre di concepta verba, da consolidare al momento della litis contestatio). Per questo è diffusa in dottrina la convinzione che il giudicato consistesse in un dictum qualunque sia, emesso non si sa precisamente come ed in presenza di chi. In questa sede si sottopone a critica tale orientamento. Se infatti è vero che nelle fonti non esiste alcuna testimonianza espressa circa la necessità per il giudice di attenersi alle parole di un preciso formulario, è altrettanto vero che esistono testimonianze sparse, tali da avvalorare l’opinione che anche la sentenza fosse un atto orale in qualche modo solenne. Per l’epoca postclassica è poi chiaramente sancito l’obbligo della forma scritta.
Il giudicato in rapporto alle formalità di rito (a proposito della struttura dell'‘obligatio iudicati')
FRANCHINI L
2013-01-01
Abstract
Within the modern judiciary system, the final sentencing, to which the previous procedural activity is teleologically addressed, must be carried out in observance to existing particular formalities. Within the Roman law system nothing of the sort is expressly asserted, neither in the period of legis actiones (for which, the pronunciation of certa verba was generally expected), nor in the period of formulae (which witnessed the use of concepta verba, to be consolidated at the moment of the litis contestatio). For this reason, it is widely diffused within the doctrine, the belief that the judgment consisted in a dictum whatever it might have been, issued no one knows how, and in the presence of whom. In this article such orientation is subjected to criticism. If on one hand it is true that, from existing sources, there is no expressed testimony regarding the needs of the judge to adhere to the words of a precise form, it is also true, that scattered evidence exists, confirming the opinion that the sentencing was also a somehow solemn verbal act. In the postclassical age, the written form, was made mandatory.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
GIUDICATO.pdf
non disponibili
Dimensione
333.12 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
333.12 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.