Table of contents

1. The so-called Victory Judgment No. 1343/11 enunciates cohabitation as an obstacle to the deliberation of the ecclesiastical judgment of matrimonial nullity and structures the relationship as a sanction of the invalid act - 2. The so-called Carnevale/Campanile ruling No. 8926/12 cancels the obex of marital cohabitation because it does not contravene public policy and does not constitute an absolute impediment - 3. The Victory ruling disregarded Constitutional Court No. 329/2001 and United Civil Sections No. 4700/1988 without going through the procedure stipulated by DLgs 40/2006 (Art. 376 cpc). The reading of the 2008 United Sections ruling No. 19809 is incomplete and erroneous - 4. Cassation jurisprudence prior and subsequent to the Victory ruling did not consider cohabitation after marriage an absolute incompatibility case - 5. The Carnevale ruling restores the constitutional principles of reasonableness and equality. The an and quantum of cohabitation at the arbitrary discretion of the individual judge - 6. Conformity with constitutional dictate of the different property regime between ecclesiastical and civil nullities and divorce (Constitutional Court No. 329/2001) - 7. The Carnevale ruling confirms the unanimous position taken by the Supreme Court in precluding the application of Law 218/95 Art. 64 (private international order) since the State-Church Agreement is a special and preeminent norm. Also precluded is any re-examination and any preliminary investigation, and the evidentiary role of the witnesses, including plaintiffs, contained in the ecclesiastical judgment to be deliberated is recognized - 8. Judgment 8926/12, with a constitutionally oriented interpretation, restores the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in cases of nullity of concordat marriages, in accordance with the pronouncement of the Constitutional Court no. 421/1993 and in total dissent from the United Civil Sections no. 1824/1993

Keywords

Ecclesiastical judgements of matrimonial nullity; exclusive canonical jurisdiction; Civil cassation sentence no. 8926/2012