Administrative courts of Nova Roma

 Home| Latíné | Deutsch | Español | Français | Italiano | Magyar | Português | Română | Русский | English

Contents 1 I. Introduction to the Administrative Court 2 II. Classification of cases before the Administrative Court 2.1 A. Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) Administrative Court cases 2.2 B. Forum Management (Triumviral) Administrative Court cases 2.3 C. Civic (Aedilician) Administrative Court cases 3 III. Magisterial jurisdiction of the different cases 3.1 A. Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) cases 3.2 B. Forum Management (Triumviral) cases 3.3 C. Civic (Aedilician) cases 4 IV. Proceedings of Adminstrative Court Cases 4.1 A. Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) cases 4.1.1 Summary Judgement 4.1.2 Proceeding to trial 4.1.3 Conducting the trial 4.1.4 Deciding the sentence 4.2 B. Forum Management (Triumviral) cases 4.2.1 Summary Judgement 4.2.2 Proceeding to trial 4.3 C. Civic (Aedilician) cases 4.3.1 Summary Judgement 4.3.2 Proceeding to trial 4.3.3 Conducting the trial 4.3.4 Deciding the sentence 5 V. Appellate court proceedings 5.1 A. Praetorial court 5.1.1 Summary Judgement 5.1.2 Proceeding to trial 5.1.3 Conducting the trial 5.1.4 Deciding the sentence 5.2 B. Court before the Comitia

I. Introduction to the Administrative Court

Administrative court proceedings serve to resolve debates and complaints between magistrates and other officers about correct procedure, and lawfulness of an action or decision, and complaints of citizens against magistrates and other officers about correct procedure and lawfulness of their action or decision. Examples include a complaint of citizen against an action or decision of a magistrate or other officer which the citizen deems illegal, mistaken or unjust, or to have been made according to an incorrect or unlawful procedure. The administrative court may not be used to decide administrative debates in which one of the parties is the Comitia, the Senate, the Collegium Pontificum or Collegium Augurum.

Only recent actions, decisions, controversies and disputes may be brought to trial by a Administrative Court. If more than 6 months have elapsed after the disputed action or decision that is brought to a Administrative Court, the case shall be automatically dismissed, and no jurisdictional trial may be held about such a petition.

If the involved litigant parties are uncertain about which type of court they should petition with their complaint or case, they shall ask for a general directional ruling from the Praetorian Office, and they shall turn to the jurisdiction of the court as directed.

1. Challenges made about the correctness of this general directional ruling shall be addressed to the praetors who shall handle any controversy about the selection of the appropriate court in a form of an administrative court trial, as the court of first instance, for original jurisdiction.

2. Appeals against the ruling of the praetor shall be made to the comitia as the court of second instance. Once a verdict is made by the comitia, it shall be considered final.

Regular terms used in the courts of Nova Roma:

petitio actionis = request for action (formal compliant made to a magistrate)	actor = plaintiff (the one raising the complaint)	reus = the defendant (the accused or opposite party)	litigant parties = the actor and reus of a particular case
trinundinum = a period including three nundinae (market days, held every eight days), total 24 calendar days.	poena/poenae = punishment/punishments	Sententia/Sententiae = The expression of opinion of conviction	iudex/iudices = judge/judges
advocatus = advocate or barrister	praetorian court = Normally an appellate court, a court of higher or alternate instance presided over by a praetor

II. Classification of cases before the Administrative Court

There are several types of cases tried under an Administrative Court proceeding. These types fall within three case classifications, each tried by different magistrates in the first instance.

A. Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) Administrative Court cases

These cases are concerned with administrative controversy cases which involve only internal debates, such as those between officers and magistrates. Cases also fall under this classification if an administrative controversy case cannot be identified as belonging under any category of the lex Lucilia iudiciaria, the lex Salvia poenalis, or any other law of Nova Roma.

This form of court case also includes cases of magisterial fault, neglect, or negligence, known as culpa, the term of civil law in ancient Rome. Culpae iuris publici in Nova Roma are defined any irregularities or breaches of the law committed out of inobservance of law, negligence, omission, failure, or due to circumstances or force majeure. Culpae normally lack evil intention, but they are simply the consequence or irresponsibility and carelessness. Unlike crimina cases, cases concerning 'culpae can be conducted against sitting magistrates.

Trials about controversy include proceedings about administrative complaints, requests for overturning decisions, disputes of competence, procedure and lawfulness. These forms of cases do not issue poenae (penalties).

B. Forum Management (Triumviral) Administrative Court cases

In controversies involving the need for forum management decisions and disciplinary measures of the moderators and administrators of all official public forums of Nova Roma, this classification of case applies. This is considered a special sub category of controversy cases as they need to be addressed as quickly as possible, and they are usually minor issues, existing only in the context of the active community of the forums of Nova Roma.

This classification of case always commences with an expedited procedure, without trial, called a summary judgment. If with all litigants present and one of the litigant parties refuses the summary judgment, then these cases are appealed through one of three different courses:

• The controversy is involving a citizen making a complaint against an officer’s decision, or between officers contesting each other’s decision or action. These are conducted as general administrative complaints through the next elevated level of jurisdiction for Forum Management cases.

• The controversy is between two officers, but they debate about their competence, duties and rights, or about an interpretation of a law. This form of case should be handled within the frames of a Constitutional Court proceeding.

• The controversy is between two citizens, magistrates in their capacity as private citizens, even if it is a forum related controversy. These cases are classified as a Judiciary Court case.

C. Civic (Aedilician) Administrative Court cases

Civic cases include the following types:

• Market regulation Administrative Court cases. These include controversies about management decisions and disciplinary measures of the market, of marketing and commercial activities within Nova Roma, market and commerce related disputes between users of the market that do not belong under any paragraph of the lex Salvia poenalis or to one of the cases which are assigned to the praetorian court in other laws.

• Website management Administrative Court cases. Controversies about management decisions regarding the content and the rights and interests of the editors and users of the official websites of Nova Roma, website related disputes between editors and users of these websites that do not belong under any paragraph of the lex Salvia poenalis or to one of the cases which are assigned to the praetorian court in other laws.

• Media management Administrative Court cases. Controversies about management decisions regarding the content and the rights and interests of the editors and users of the official media outlets and services of Nova Roma, disputes between editors and users of these media that do not belong under any paragraph of the lex Salvia poenalis, or to one of the cases which are assigned to the praetorian court in other laws.

• Cultural and festival management Administrative Court cases. Controversies regarding the official autonomous or allied gladiatorial reenactment groups and similar official circensic societies of Nova Roma, management decisions regarding the content and the rights and interests of the organizers and participants of the cultural programs and festivals of Nova Roma, disputes between organizers and participants of these programs that do not belong under any paragraph of the lex Salvia poenalis or to one of the cases which are assigned to the praetorian court in other laws.

III. Magisterial jurisdiction of the different cases

A. Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) cases

• First Level. For Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) cases, the Decemviri Stlitibus Iudicandis will serve as judges in the court of first instance. The role of the iudices shall be filled by the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis themselves, their full collegium being the tribunal. They shall agree among each other about who will preside as chairman of the trial, assuming the role of the presiding praetor, and subsequently who is responsible for conducting the trial according to the lex Salvia iudiciaria. They may change the chairman during the course of the trial upon collegial agreement. The formula for the trial is developed based on their collegial decision in place of the praetor. Cases brought before these magistrates may not be rejected.

• Second Level. Appeals against the ruling of the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis, or if an accusation of culpa is raised against one or more decemviri, it shall be brought to a Praetor as the court of second instance.

• Third Level. Appeals against a ruling of the praetor in these cases shall be made to the Comitia Centuriata as the court of third instance. Once a verdict is made by the comitia, it is considered final.

B. Forum Management (Triumviral) cases

• First Level. For Forum Management (Triumviral) cases, the Tresviri Capitales will serve as judges in the court of first instance. Due to the time sensitive nature of forum controversies, such cases shall be first heard according to an expedited procedure, without trial, called a summary judgment. In other words, the tresviri capitales may only conduct summary judgements.

• Second Level. Appeals against the ruling of the tresviri capitales, or in controversies about the forum management decisions and disciplinary measures made personally by the tresviri capitales regarding actions in any official public forums of Nova Roma are be made to the Aediles as the court of first instance. This also applies to a controversy or complaint that is not about a specific action of a specific moderator, but about other issues not regulated by the lex Salvia poenalis or other relevant laws.

• Third Level. Appeals against the ruling of the aediles on these cases, or in controversies about the forum management decisions and disciplinary measures made personally by the aediles, praetores, consules or any other magistrate or officer regarding their actions in any official public forums of Nova Roma, they are referred to the Decemviri Stlitibus Iudicandis as the court of first instance.

• Alternate Level. The litigant parties may appeal to a Praetor after the initial instance should they believe that a forum moderation controversy case transcends simple forum management and moderation debate and is being interpreted as belonging to one of the offenses and cases defined by the lex Salvia poenalis, or to one of the cases which are assigned to the praetorian court in other laws. However, the praetor has the right to refuse such appeals based on his or her insight and interpretation of the case. If the praetor does accept the case, after the sententia of the praetorian court, as in all cases of praetorian sententiae, an appeal may be made to the comitia. Once a verdict is made by the comitia, it shall be considered final.

C. Civic (Aedilician) cases

• First Level. For Civic (Aedilician) cases, the Aediles will serve as judges in the court of first instance.

• Second Level. Appeals against the ruling of the aediles are be made to the Decemviri Stlitibus Iudicandis as the court of second instance.

• Third Level. Appeals against the ruling of the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis are be made to the Praetor as the court of third instance.

• Alternate Level. The litigant parties may appeal to a Praetor after the initial instance should they believe that a civic controversy case transcends a simple management debate and is being interpreted as belonging to one of the offenses and cases defined by the lex Salvia poenalis, or to one of the cases which are assigned to the praetorian court in other laws. However, the praetor has the right to refuse such appeals based on his or her insight and interpretation of the case. If the praetor does accept the case, after the sententia of the praetorian court, as in all cases of praetorian sententiae, an appeal may be made to the comitia. Once a verdict is made by the comitia, it shall be considered final.

IV. Proceedings of Adminstrative Court Cases

All forms of cases primarily follow the process defined within the lex Salvia iudiciaria. The variance in process is generally defined by the magistrate who is presiding or judging the case.

A. Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) cases

Summary Judgement

I. Upon one or more of the Decemviri Stlitibus Iudicandis magistrates receiving a petitio actionis, they will inform all other decemviri and coordinate a notification to the reus who is informed of the nature of the claim presented against him or her and of the identity of the actor. The decemviri will also coordinate a response to the actor notifying them of the formal receipt of their petition. The magistrates are not able to reject a petitio actionis. Unlike jurisdictional court cases, administrative court cases are permitted to be held against sitting magistrates.

II. The decemviri then coordinate with each other to form a summary judgement within fourty-eight (48) hours' of notification to the actor and reus. There are no special rules concerning a summary judgement but they can be considered as a rapid abridged trial. None of the standard trial elements are required to be conducted for a summary judgement.

III. At the end of the 48 hours and all litigants have been notified of the summary judgement, there is four possible outcomes:

A. If all litigant parties accept the summary judgment, the case is closed immediately with the summary judgment enacted as the official decision.

B. If the reus does not answer to the summary judgment offered by the decemviri within a trinundinum, the decemviri shall judge the case in favor of the actor.

C. If the actor does not answer to the summary judgment offered by the decemviri within a trinundinum, the decemviri shall dismiss the case.

D. If all litigant parties answer, but one of the litigant parties refuses the administrative verdic, the case will proceed to a full trial within a trinundinum after the point the last litigant has answered.

Proceeding to trial

IV. The decemviri will first agree among each other about who will preside as the chairman of the trial, who will fill the role normally conducted by a presiding praetor and act as a primary spokesperson for the tribunal. They are responsible for conducting the trial according to the lex Salvia iudiciaria. They can change the person presiding as the chairman during the trial upon collegial agreement.

V. The decemviri are required to issue the formula for the trial based on their collegial decision. The formula consists of a logical statement that scopes and instructs the full collegium tribunal of thedecemviri, acting as the iudices on the case, on the decision they must take. The formula is structured into four parts: institutio iudicis, intentio, demonstratio and condemnatio. An explanation of each part follows:

A. INSTITVTIO IVDICIS: This clause confirms the Decemviri Stlitibus Iudicandis, acting as a collegial tribunal, as the iudex to judge the case.

B. INTENTIO: This part expresses the claim of the actor; i.e., it expresses what the actor seeks by petitioning the decemviri. There are two kinds of intentio: intentio certa, when the facts that lead to the claim of the actor are so obvious that they do not need to be proved, and intentio incerta, when the actor must prove the facts that justify his or her claim.

Example: Intentio Certa: "According to the public statement posted by the magistrate..." Intentio Incerta: "If it is proved that magistrate Ticius unlawfully denied Gaius as a candidate, Ticius shall reverse his decision".

C. DEMONSTRATIO: This is the clause that further defines an intentio incerta.

D. CONDEMNATIO: This is the clause that allows the iudices to condemn or absolve.

Note: Sententiae through the Administrative Court process do not contain poenae, but they may uphold any existing administrative poenae under question in a case.

• Example: "Let the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis be the iudices. If it is proved that magistrate Spurius unlawfully denied citizen Gaius as a candidate to the election, who, upon demonstrating he met the required conditions in accordance with the lex Salvia de prorogatione et cumulatione, we, the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis, shall condemn the magistrate Spurius to reverse his decision and permit citizen Gaius as a candidate, otherwise we shall acquit magistrate Spurius."

• Example (in parts): Institutio Iudicis: "Let the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis be the iudices. Intentio: If it is proved that magistrate Spurius unlawfully denied citizen Gaius as a candidate to the election, Demonstratio: who, upon demonstrating he met the required conditions in accordance with the lex Salvia de prorogatione et cumulatione, Condemnatio: we, the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis, shall condemn the magistrate Spurius to reverse his decision and permit citizen Gaius as a candidate, otherwise we shall acquit magistrate Spurius."

VI. The formula and the sententia for cases of culpae iuris publici (administrative cases) are composed the same way as formulae and sententiae under judiciary court proceedings, as it is described by the lex Salvia iudiciaria. These forms of administrative cases are the only case types that may include poenae. The following culpae may be prosecuted in Nova Roma, commencing with the decemviri:

A.CULPA LATA (Gross Negligence):

1. The omission of even the basic care about one’s public duties, disappearing from office without explanation, failing to act in mandatory tasks, failing to answer official orders, submit obligatory reports, disregarding important deadlines causing extreme delays, or any rules and procedures in such a way that it brought, or could have brought, severe harm to several citizens, to institutions or to Nova Roma as whole. Especially serious is the culpa lata if the culprit does not even try to correct the irregularities or to solve the problems caused by the negligence.

2. In case of culpa lata, the formula at the court may include the following poenae:

DECLARATIO PUBLICA: Public apology and explanation of the failure.

MULTA CENSUALIS: Deduction of 400 Census Points according to “very serious offense” category described by the lex Salvia iudiciaria, 13.2.3.

MULTA PECUNIARIA: Fine payable to the treasury of Nova Roma if financial damage is assessed by the court, proportional to the amount.

B. CULPA LEVIS (Ordinary Neglect):

1. Ordinary neglect is a want of normal diligence, ordinary care. An occasional failure in an otherwise acceptable performance, tolerable delays and omissions of deadlines causing no harm, delay in performance of duties, in anwering of official orders, inquiries, sending of reports. Ordinary neglect causes inconvenient situations but no serious harm, and there is apparent intention to remedy the situation.

2. In case of culpa levis, the formula at the court may include the following poenae:

DECLARATIO PUBLICA: Public apology and explanation of the failure.

MULTA CENSUALIS: Deduction of 100 Census Points according to “serious offense” category described by the lex Salvia iudiciaria, 13.2.2.

MULTA PECUNIARIA: Fine payable to the treasury of Nova Roma if financial damage is assessed by the court, proportional to the amount.

C. CULPA LEVISSIMA (Slight Neglect):

1. Slight neglect is a rarely occurring minor irregularity, mistake in formality and procedure, in an otherwise very dutiful performance. Small delays that cause no harm, quickly corrected errors, breaches that can be explained by external causes and force majeure.

2. In case of culpa levis, the formula at the court may include the following poenae:

DECLARATIO PUBLICA: Public apology and explanation of the failure.

MULTA CENSUALIS: Deduction of 10 Census Points according to “minor offense” category described by the lex Salvia iudiciaria, 13.2.1.

VII. To write down a formula, the decemviri must use one of these sources as a basis:

A. Lex: the intentio and the condemnatio shall never be in disagreement with the current laws of Nova Roma. They must follow these laws when the situation is explicitly treated by them.

B. Iurisprudentia: in those cases where the laws do not present an explicit treatment of a certain situation, the decemviri may propose to a praetor that he or she create iurisprudentia (jurisprudence) applicable to all similar situations. Iurisprudentia is an expression of the Imperium of the praetor, and it has the same legislative power as a praetorial edictum. Because of this, laws approved by the comitia shall always supersede iurisprudentia, and a certain praetor can alter previous iurisprudentia through an official edictum whenever common sense dictates that such a course of action is necessary.

VIII. In those cases of complaints by citizens petitioning against decisions or actions of officers regarding correct procedure and lawfulness of their action or decision, petitions by citizens or officers for overturning official actions or decisions of officers, and in controversies between officers about competence, authority, correct procedure and lawfulness of an action or decision, the formula issued by the magistrates shall describe the complaint and the requested action or decision, or the requested overturn of an action or decision, for which the actor petitioned, and is to be accompanied by a proposed decretum. At the and of the trial, when the tribunal issues their sententiae, they issue their decision, whether they concede to the request of the actor, or reject the request, through the published decretum.

Conducting the trial

IX. Once the tribunal of decemviri is ready, they are to determine by collegial decision if the trial is going to be conducted under the public scrutiny or, should the dignitas of innocents be at stake, declare a secret summary and move the trial away from public scrutiny. Trials may be live events or may be via some other medium (text or forum post based, email etc.) determined by the tribunal.

X. Any of the parties can choose to appoint an advocatus (advocate or barrister) to speak for them in front of the iudices, or they can choose to speak by themselves. An advocatus shall not receive a fee for his services.

XI. The actor shall present evidence to back his or her demands, and then the reus shall present evidence to back his or her defense. Evidence shall consist of anything that is relevant to the case, including written texts, visual evidence, and the statements of witnesses or experts. In the case of statements, each party shall have the right to ask questions of the witnesses and experts presented by the other party.

XII. The chairman shall be the final judge to determine what pieces of evidence are relevant to the case.

XIII. Once both parties have presented their evidence, each party shall have the opportunity to make one final statement in front of the tribunal, with the actor speaking in the first place.

Deciding the sentence

XIV. Once the final statements have been issued by all litigants, the tribunal have seventy-two (72) hours to deliberate the request of the actor. Each of the decemviri on the tribunal issues their vote based on one of the following:

A. LITEM ACTORI ADIUDICO: If a decemvir magistrate concedes to the request of the actor; “I judge the case in favor of the plaintiff.”

B. CAUSAM REPELLO: If a decemvir magistrate rejects the request of the actor; “I reject the case.”

C. NON LIQUET: If a decemvir magistrate cannot decide; “It is not clear.”

XV. If the request is accepted, the magistrate which presided the proceeding shall immediately, at the same time when the verdict is issued, publish the decretum overturning the action or decision as requested, or enacting the requested ruling according to the initial complaint. Should the votes for NON LIQUET outnumber all of the other votes combined, none of the proposed decreta shall be enacted, and the case shall be dismissed, with the possibility of a new proceeding with different proposals of interpretation. Should there be a draw in the sentences between LITEM ACTORI ADIUDICO and CAUSAM REPELLO, then the LITEM ACTORI ADIUDICO shall be considered to prevail.

XVI. For administrative cases of culpae iuris publici, the decemviri tribunal have seventy-two (72) hours to deliberate, whithin which each will individually issue one of the following sentences:

A. ABSOLVO: if the tribunal's majority decision is "absolvo", the reus shall be acquitted.

B. CONDEMNO: if the tribunal's majority decision is "condemno", the reus shall be condemned according to the formula previously established by the tribunal.

C. NON LIQUET: meaning “it is not clear, abstaining”. These sentences shall be counted toward ABSOLVO.

Should there be a draw in the tribunal's votes (sentences of CONDEMNO being equal to the sum of ABSOLVO and NON LIQUET combined), the reus shall be acquitted.

XVII. Once all the tribunal have issued their sententiae, the chairman will immediately inform the parties of the sententia, and shall enforce any penalties or outcomes through the issue the proposed decretum.

B. Forum Management (Triumviral) cases

Summary Judgement

I. Upon one or more of the Tresviri Capitales magistrates receiving a petitio actionis on a forum issue, they will inform all other tresviri and coordinate a notification to the reus who is informed of the nature of the claim presented against him or her and of the identity of the actor. The tresviri will also coordinate a response to the actor notifying them of the formal receipt of their petition. The magistrates are not able to reject a petitio actionis. Unlike jurisdictional court cases, administrative court cases are permitted to be held against sitting magistrates.

II. The tresviri then coordinate with each other to form a summary judgement within twenty-four (24) hours of notification to the actor and reus. There are no special rules concerning a summary judgement but they can be considered as a rapid abridged trial. None of the standard trial elements are required to be conducted for a summary judgement.

III. At the end of the twenty-four (24) hours and all litigants have been notified of the summary judgement, there is four possible outcomes:

A. If all litigant parties accept the summary judgment, the case is closed immediately with the summary judgment enacted as the official decision.

B. If the reus does not answer to the summary judgment offered by the decemviri within twenty-four (24) hours, the decemviri shall judge the case in favor of the actor.

C. If the actor does not answer to the summary judgment offered by the decemviri within twenty-four (24) hours, the decemviri shall dismiss the case.

D. If all litigant parties answer, but one of the litigant parties refuses the administrative verdict, the case will proceed to a full trial within seventy-two (72) hours after the point the last litigant has answered.

Proceeding to trial

IV. The Tresviri Capitales may not conduct trials. If a summary judgement is rejected, it is passed to the appropriate jurisdiction for trial:

A.If the controversy involves a citizen making a complaint against an officer’s decision, or between officers contesting each other’s decision or action, they shall be conducted according to the general administrative complaints and a tribunal of the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis.

B. If the controversy is between two officers, but they debate about their competence, duties and rights, or about an interpretation of a law, the case should be handled within the frames of a constitutional court.

C. If the controversy is between two citizens, even if magistrates but having a controversy as private citizens, even if it is a forum related controversy, it is classified as a judiciary court case, and if the case can be classified under one of the litigation categories of the leges Salviae, it should be conducted according the them, if it cannot, then it shall be conducted as a judiciary case without existing category.

C. Civic (Aedilician) cases

Summary Judgement

I. Upon one or more of the Aediles magistrates receiving a petitio actionis, they will inform all other aediles and coordinate a notification to the reus who is informed of the nature of the claim presented against him or her and of the identity of the actor. The aediles will also coordinate a response to the actor notifying them of the formal receipt of their petition. The magistrates are not able to reject a petitio actionis. Unlike jurisdictional court cases, administrative court cases are permitted to be held against sitting magistrates.

II. The aediles then coordinate with each other to form a summary judgement within fourty-eight (48) hours of notification to the actor and reus. There are no special rules concerning a summary judgement but they can be considered as a rapid abridged trial. None of the proceeding elements are required to be conducted in a sumamry trial.

III. At the end of the 48 hours and all litigants have been notified of the summary judgement, there is four possible outcomes:

A. If all litigant parties accept the summary judgment, the case is closed immediately with the summary judgment enacted as the official decision.

B. If the reus does not answer to the summary judgment offered by the aediles within a trinundinum, the aediles will judge the case in favor of the actor.

C. If the actor does not answer to the summary judgment offered by the aediles within a trinundinum, the aediles will dismiss the case.

D. If all litigant parties answer, but one of the litigant parties refuses the administrative verdic, the case will proceed to a full trial within a trinundinum (24 days) after the point the last litigant has answered.

Proceeding to trial

IV. The aediles will first agree among each other about who will preside as the chairman of the trial, who will fill the role normally conducted by a presiding praetor and act as a primary spokesperson for the tribunal. They are responsible for conducting the trial according to the lex Salvia iudiciaria. They can change the person presiding as the chairman during the trial upon collegial agreement.

V. The aediles are required to issue the formula for the trial based on their collegial decision. The formula consists of a logical statement that scopes and instructs the full collegium tribunal of theaediles, acting as the iudices on the case, on the decision they must take. The formula is structured into four parts: institutio iudicis, intentio, demonstratio and condemnatio. An explanation of each part follows:

A. INSTITVTIO IVDICIS: This clause confirms the Decemviri Stlitibus Iudicandis, acting as a collegial tribunal, as the iudex to judge the case.

B. INTENTIO: This part expresses the claim of the actor; i.e., it expresses what the actor seeks by petitioning the decemviri. There are two kinds of intentio: intentio certa, when the facts that lead to the claim of the actor are so obvious that they do not need to be proved, and intentio incerta, when the actor must prove the facts that justify his or her claim.

Example: Intentio Certa: "According to the public statement posted by the magistrate..." Intentio Incerta: "If it is proved that magistrate Ticius unlawfully denied Gaius as a candidate, Ticius shall reverse his decision".

C. DEMONSTRATIO: This is the clause that further defines an intentio incerta.

D. CONDEMNATIO: This is the clause that allows the iudices to condemn or absolve.

Note: Sententiae through the Administrative Court process do not contain poenae, but they may uphold any existing administrative poenae under question in a case.

• Example: "Let the aediles be the iudices. If it is proved that event organizer Decimus unrightfully penalized citizen Gnaeus in the allied gladiatorial reenactment group competition, who, upon demonstrating he was incorrectly disadvantaged according to group rules, we, the aediles, shall condemn the event organizer Decimus to reverse his decision and award gladiator Gnaeus adequately for the competition, otherwise we shall acquit event organizer Decimus."

• Example (in parts): Institutio Iudicis: "Let the aediles be the iudices. Intentio: If it is proved that event organizer Decimus unrightfully penalized citizen Gnaeus in the allied gladiatorial reenactment group competition, Demonstratio: who, upon demonstrating he was incorrectly disadvantaged according to group rules, Condemnatio: we, the aediles, shall condemn the event organizer Decimus to reverse his decision and award gladiator Gnaeus adequately for the competition, otherwise we shall acquit event organizer Decimus."

VI. To write down a formula, the aediles must use one of these sources as a basis:

A. Lex: the intentio and the condemnatio shall never be in disagreement with the current laws of Nova Roma. They must follow these laws when the situation is explicitly treated by them.

B. Iurisprudentia: in those cases where the laws do not present an explicit treatment of a certain situation, the aediles may propose to a praetor that he or she create iurisprudentia (jurisprudence) applicable to all similar situations. Iurisprudentia is an expression of the Imperium of the praetor, and it has the same legislative power as a praetorial edictum. Because of this, laws approved by the comitia shall always supersede iurisprudentia, and a certain praetor can alter previous iurisprudentia through an official edictum whenever common sense dictates that such a course of action is necessary.

VII. In those cases of complaints by citizens petitioning against decisions or actions of officers regarding correct procedure and lawfulness of their action or decision, petitions by citizens or officers for overturning official actions or decisions of officers, and in controversies between officers about competence, authority, correct procedure and lawfulness of an action or decision, the formula issued by the magistrates shall describe the complaint and the requested action or decision, or the requested overturn of an action or decision, for which the actor petitioned, and is to be accompanied by a proposed decretum. At the and of the trial, when the tribunal issues their sententiae, they issue their decision, whether they concede to the request of the actor, or reject the request, through the published decretum.

Conducting the trial

VIII. Once the tribunal of aediles are ready, they are to determine by collegial decision if the trial is going to be conducted under the public scrutiny or, should the dignitas of innocents be at stake, declare a secret summary and move the trial away from public scrutiny. Trials may be live events or may be via some other medium (text or forum post based, email etc.) determined by the tribunal.

IX. Any of the parties can choose to appoint an advocatus (advocate or barrister) to speak for them in front of the iudices, or they can choose to speak by themselves. An advocatus shall not receive a fee for his services.

X. The actor shall present evidence to back his or her demands, and then the reus shall present evidence to back his or her defense. Evidence shall consist of anything that is relevant to the case, including written texts, visual evidence, and the statements of witnesses or experts. In the case of statements, each party shall have the right to ask questions of the witnesses and experts presented by the other party.

XI. The chairman shall be the final judge to determine what pieces of evidence are relevant to the case.

XII. Once both parties have presented their evidence, each party shall have the opportunity to make one final statement in front of the tribunal, with the actor speaking in the first place.

Deciding the sentence

XIII. Once the final statements have been issued by all litigants, the tribunal have seventy-two (72) hours to deliberate the request of the actor. Each of the aediles on the tribunal issues their vote based on one of the following:

A. LITEM ACTORI ADIUDICO: If a decemvir magistrate concedes to the request of the actor; “I judge the case in favor of the plaintiff.”

B. CAUSAM REPELLO: If a decemvir magistrate rejects the request of the actor; “I reject the case.”

C. NON LIQUET: If a decemvir magistrate cannot decide; “It is not clear.”

XIV. If the request is accepted, the magistrate which presided the proceeding shall immediately, at the same time when the verdict is issued, publish the decretum overturning the action or decision as requested, or enacting the requested ruling according to the initial complaint. Should the votes for NON LIQUET outnumber all of the other votes combined, none of the proposed decreta shall be enacted, and the case shall be dismissed, with the possibility of a new proceeding with different proposals of interpretation. Should there be a draw in the sentences between LITEM ACTORI ADIUDICO and CAUSAM REPELLO, then the LITEM ACTORI ADIUDICO shall be considered to prevail.

XV. Once all the tribunal have issued their sententiae, the chairman will immediately inform the parties of the sententia, and shall enforce any penalties or outcomes through the issue the proposed decretum.

V. Appellate court proceedings

Based on the instance of adminsitrative court for a case and the original magistirial jurisdiction determined from the case type, an appeal by any litigant party may bring the case before a praetor or the Comitia Centuriata.

A. Praetorial court

I. Administrative cases will come before the praetors in several instances:

A. For Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) cases on appeal, as a court of second instance,

B. For Civic (Aedilician) cases on appeal, as a court of third instance, and

C. For Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) cases that concern one or more of the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis as a reus, as a court of first instance.

Other cases raised to the praetors likely fall outside of Administrative courts and are proccessed through the proceedings of a Constitutional Court or Judiciary Court.

II. In all Administrative cases, the process for a trial is in accordance with the lex Salvia iudiciaria and is detailed below.

Summary Judgement

III. When a praetor receives a petitio actionis, they will inform all other praetores, coordinating a notification to the reus who is informed of the nature of the claim presented against him or her and of the identity of the actor. The praetores will also coordinate a response to the actor notifying them of the formal receipt of their petition. Unlike for other magistrates, only one praetor is required to preside over proceedings.

IV. The praetor shall decide, within 72 hours, if the petitio actionis shall be heard by a court or if it will be dismissed. Unlike other magistrates, a praetor has some provisions to dismiss a petitio actionis outright without the case being considered. A praetor will dismiss a petitio actionis if one of the following cases applies:

A. The praetor has no competence in the issue.

Example: a praetor cannot mediate between two foreign parties, for his competence is limited to the citizens of Nova Roma.

B. The parties are not sui iuris in Nova Roma.

Example: a minor can not play the part of an actor.

C. The claim is incongruent.

Example: "Ticius must be expelled from Nova Roma because he is bearded" is an incongruent claim, for it is not supported by law, precedent or common sense.

V. If the claim is dismissed by the praetores, the actor shall be able to present his case again to the praetores in the future, waiting for two new praetores to be elected by the Comitia. Unlike jurisdictional court cases, administrative court cases are permitted to be held against sitting magistrates.

VI. In most instances when a praetor is to hear a case, it is not the first instance the case has gone to trial. As such, the usefulness of a summary judgement is likely to be minimal, and unlikely to be accepted by one of the parties. If proceeding with a summary judgement, the praetor forms a summary judgement within fourty-eight (48) hours' of notification to the actor and reus that they are accepting the petitio actionis. There are no special rules concerning a summary judgement but they can be considered as a rapid abridged trial. None of the standard trial elements are required to be conducted for a summary judgement.

III. At the end of the 48 hours and all litigants have been notified of the summary judgement, there is four possible outcomes:

A. If all litigant parties accept the summary judgment, the case is closed immediately with the summary judgment enacted as the official decision.

B. If the reus does not answer to the summary judgment offered by the decemviri within a trinundinum, the decemviri shall judge the case in favor of the actor.

C. If the actor does not answer to the summary judgment offered by the decemviri within a trinundinum, the decemviri shall dismiss the case.

D. If all litigant parties answer, but one of the litigant parties refuses the administrative verdic, the case will proceed to a full trial within a trinundinum after the point the last litigant has answered.

Proceeding to trial

IV. The praetor is required to issue the formula for the trial. The formula consists of a logical statement that scopes and instructs the tribunal of iudeces for the case, on the decision they must take. The formula is structured into four parts: institutio iudicis, intentio, demonstratio and condemnatio. An explanation of each part follows:

A. INSTITVTIO IVDICIS: This clause appoints a certain iudex, acting as the tribunal, who will judge the case.

B. INTENTIO: This part expresses the claim of the actor; i.e., it expresses what the actor seeks by petitioning the praetores. There are two kinds of intentio: intentio certa, when the facts that lead to the claim of the actor are so obvious that they do not need to be proved, and intentio incerta, when the actor must prove the facts that justify his or her claim.

Example: Intentio Certa: "According to the public statement posted by the magistrate..." Intentio Incerta: "If it is proved that magistrate Ticius unlawfully denied Gaius as a candidate, Ticius shall reverse his decision".

C. DEMONSTRATIO: This is the clause that further defines an intentio incerta.

D. CONDEMNATIO: This is the clause that allows the iudices to condemn or absolve.

Note: Sententiae through the Administrative Court process do not contain poenae, but they may uphold any existing administrative poenae under question in a case.

• Example: "Let Cornelius be the iudex. If it is proved that magistrate Spurius unlawfully denied citizen Gaius as a candidate to the election, who, upon demonstrating he met the required conditions in accordance with the lex Salvia de prorogatione et cumulatione, you shall condemn the magistrate Spurius to reverse his decision and permit citizen Gaius as a candidate, otherwise you shall acquit magistrate Spurius."

• Example (in parts): Institutio Iudicis: "Let Cornelius be the iudex. Intentio: If it is proved that magistrate Spurius unlawfully denied citizen Gaius as a candidate to the election, Demonstratio: who, upon demonstrating he met the required conditions in accordance with the lex Salvia de prorogatione et cumulatione, Condemnatio: you shall condemn the magistrate Spurius to reverse his decision and permit citizen Gaius as a candidate, otherwise you shall acquit magistrate Spurius."

V. The formula and the sententia for cases of culpae iuris publici (administrative cases) are composed the same way as formulae and sententiae under judiciary court proceedings, as it is described by the lex Salvia iudiciaria. These forms of administrative cases are the only case types that may include poenae. The following culpae may be prosecuted in Nova Roma, commencing with the decemviri:

A.CULPA LATA (Gross Negligence):

1. The omission of even the basic care about one’s public duties, disappearing from office without explanation, failing to act in mandatory tasks, failing to answer official orders, submit obligatory reports, disregarding important deadlines causing extreme delays, or any rules and procedures in such a way that it brought, or could have brought, severe harm to several citizens, to institutions or to Nova Roma as whole. Especially serious is the culpa lata if the culprit does not even try to correct the irregularities or to solve the problems caused by the negligence.

2. In case of culpa lata, the formula at the court may include the following poenae:

DECLARATIO PUBLICA: Public apology and explanation of the failure.

MULTA CENSUALIS: Deduction of 400 Census Points according to “very serious offense” category described by the lex Salvia iudiciaria, 13.2.3.

MULTA PECUNIARIA: Fine payable to the treasury of Nova Roma if financial damage is assessed by the court, proportional to the amount.

B. CULPA LEVIS (Ordinary Neglect):

1. Ordinary neglect is a want of normal diligence, ordinary care. An occasional failure in an otherwise acceptable performance, tolerable delays and omissions of deadlines causing no harm, delay in performance of duties, in anwering of official orders, inquiries, sending of reports. Ordinary neglect causes inconvenient situations but no serious harm, and there is apparent intention to remedy the situation.

2. In case of culpa levis, the formula at the court may include the following poenae:

DECLARATIO PUBLICA: Public apology and explanation of the failure.

MULTA CENSUALIS: Deduction of 100 Census Points according to “serious offense” category described by the lex Salvia iudiciaria, 13.2.2.

MULTA PECUNIARIA: Fine payable to the treasury of Nova Roma if financial damage is assessed by the court, proportional to the amount.

C. CULPA LEVISSIMA (Slight Neglect):

1. Slight neglect is a rarely occurring minor irregularity, mistake in formality and procedure, in an otherwise very dutiful performance. Small delays that cause no harm, quickly corrected errors, breaches that can be explained by external causes and force majeure.

2. In case of culpa levis, the formula at the court may include the following poenae:

DECLARATIO PUBLICA: Public apology and explanation of the failure.

MULTA CENSUALIS: Deduction of 10 Census Points according to “minor offense” category described by the lex Salvia iudiciaria, 13.2.1.

VI. To write down a formula, the praetor must use one of these sources as a basis:

A. Lex: the intentio and the condemnatio shall never be in disagreement with the current laws of Nova Roma. They must follow these laws when the situation is explicitly treated by them.

B. Iurisprudentia: in those cases where the laws do not present an explicit treatment of a certain situation, the praetor may create iurisprudentia (jurisprudence) applicable to all similar situations. Iurisprudentia is an expression of the Imperium of the praetor, and it has the same legislative power as a praetorial edictum. Because of this, laws approved by the comitia shall always supersede iurisprudentia, and a certain praetor can alter previous iurisprudentia through an official edictum whenever common sense dictates that such a course of action is necessary.

VII. In those cases of complaints by citizens petitioning against decisions or actions of officers regarding correct procedure and lawfulness of their action or decision, petitions by citizens or officers for overturning official actions or decisions of officers, and in controversies between officers about competence, authority, correct procedure and lawfulness of an action or decision, the formula issued by the magistrates shall describe the complaint and the requested action or decision, or the requested overturn of an action or decision, for which the actor petitioned, and is to be accompanied by a proposed decretum. At the and of the trial, when the tribunal issues their sententiae, they issue their decision, whether they concede to the request of the actor, or reject the request, through the published decretum.

Conducting the trial

VIII. Once the praetor is ready, they are to determine if the trial is going to be conducted under the public scrutiny or, should the dignitas of innocents be at stake, declare a secret summary and move the trial away from public scrutiny. Trials may be live events or may be via some other medium (text or forum post based, email etc.) determined by the praetor.

IX. Any of the parties can choose to appoint an advocatus (advocate or barrister) to speak for them in front of the iudices, or they can choose to speak by themselves. An advocatus shall not receive a fee for his services.

X. Once the formula is ready, iudices shall be appointed from the album iudicum, a list of all the citizens that can legally judge a case. The album iudicum shall include the names of all equestrians (public and private knights, as well), tribuni aerarii equestres, senators (adlected full senators and unadlected quasi-senators with the ius sententiae dicendae, as well) and the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis.

XI. The number of iudices that shall make up the tribunalis (court of justice) for a certain case shall be decided by the praetor. For Administrative Court cases the tribunal shall be composed of a single iudex when serving as a court of first instance, and between two to five iudices (number decided by the praetor) when serving as an appellate court in these cases, granted that the same iudex cannot serve in both the court of first instance and court of appeal for the same case.

XII. The praetor shall aleatorily take a number of names equal to the number of iudices from the album iudicum. The following considerations apply:

A. If the praetor considers that some of the iudices thus appointed are obviously related by ties of interest to one of the parties, then the praetor shall, at his own discretion, dismiss those iudices and cast lots to appoint different iudices from the album iudicum.

B. A citizen thus appointed to a court shall be able to ask for an exemption from that judicial work if there are factors that do not allow him to serve in that position. The praetor must be asked for that exemption within thirty-six (36) hours of the official announcement of that appointment; the praetor shall grant that exemption at his own discretion, or he shall deny it, thus forcing the appointed iudex to serve or face an accusation of contempt.

C. Each party shall be able to dismiss a maximum of three (3) iudices, forcing a new iudex to be aleatorily taken from the album iudicum with each veto. Once both parties agree with a certain group of iudices, or both have already used their three vetoes, the remaining iudices shall be the final iudices, unless one of the preceding paragraphs applies.

D. If both parties can agree on a certain citizen(s) of Nova Roma to judge their case before a definitive group of legal iudices has been appointed, then the praetor shall include that citizen (or those citizens) among the iudices for the current case (if eligible for the album).

XIII. With the court commenced, the actor shall present evidence to back his or her demands, and then the reus shall present evidence to back his or her defense. Evidence shall consist of anything that is relevant to the case, including written texts, visual evidence, and the statements of witnesses or experts. In the case of statements, each party shall have the right to ask questions of the witnesses and experts presented by the other party.

XIV. The praetor shall be the final judge to determine what pieces of evidence are relevant to the case.

XV. Once both parties have presented their evidence, each party shall have the opportunity to make one final statement in front of the tribunal, with the actor speaking in the first place.

Deciding the sentence

XIV. Once the final statements have been issued by all litigants, the tribunal has seventy-two (72) hours to deliberate the request of the actor. Each of the iudices on the tribunal issues their vote based on one of the following:

A. LITEM ACTORI ADIUDICO: If a iudex concedes to the request of the actor; “I judge the case in favor of the plaintiff.”

B. CAUSAM REPELLO: If a iudex rejects the request of the actor; “I reject the case.”

C. NON LIQUET: If a iudex cannot decide; “It is not clear.”

XV. If the request is accepted, the praetor which presided the proceeding shall immediately, at the same time when the verdict is issued, publish the decretum overturning the action or decision as requested, or enacting the requested ruling according to the initial complaint. Should the votes for NON LIQUET outnumber all of the other votes combined, none of the proposed decreta shall be enacted, and the case shall be dismissed, with the possibility of a new proceeding with different proposals of interpretation. Should there be a draw in the sentences between LITEM ACTORI ADIUDICO and CAUSAM REPELLO, then the LITEM ACTORI ADIUDICO shall be considered to prevail.

XVI. For administrative cases of culpae iuris publici, the tribunal have seventy-two (72) hours to deliberate, whithin which each will individually issue one of the following sentences:

A. ABSOLVO: if the tribunal's majority decision is "absolvo", the reus shall be acquitted.

B. CONDEMNO: if the tribunal's majority decision is "condemno", the reus shall be condemned according to the formula previously established by the tribunal.

C. NON LIQUET: meaning “it is not clear, abstaining”. These sentences shall be counted toward ABSOLVO.

Should there be a draw in the tribunal's votes (sentences of CONDEMNO being equal to the sum of ABSOLVO and NON LIQUET combined), the reus shall be acquitted.

XVII. Once all the tribunal have issued their sententiae, the praetor will immediately inform the parties of the sententia, and shall enforce any penalties or outcomes through the issue the proposed decretum.

B. Court before the Comitia

This section under development

Comitia Centuriata

Trials heard by the comitia shall be conducted as any other sessions of the comitia, according to the lex Tullia de comitiis habendis, but the presiding magistrate shall ensure that each side of the case has at least one advocatus who presents the arguments and evidences in the forum where the comitia are held, and the the call to vote in the session of the comitia and the ballot formula shall contain documents, or links to the documents, composed by the advocati demonstrating the arguments and evidences of their side of the case. Trials before the comitia that do not satisfy these requirements shall be considered illegal, invalid, null and void.

When this proceeding is conducted before the comitia, the formula and the sententiae shall be composed the same way as in the case of constitutional court cases of the comitia at II.D.2.c.ii, but instead of multiple rogatio proposals, there shall be only one, which describes the requested instructions or annulment of actions. The rest of the process shall follow the procedure at II.D.2.c.ii.

1. Appeals to the comitia against a sententia made by the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis shall be presented to any magistrate or officer (normally a praetor, alternatively a consul or a tribune of the plebs) who has the right to convene any of the comitia. It shall be within the right of that magistrate to decide the validity and necessity of the appeal, and to accept or refuse the appeal. a. If the appeal is refused, the petitioner may present the petition to another magistrate who has the right to conduct the proceedings. b. If the appeal is accepted, the magistrate who accepted the appeal shall call the contio to be in session for the trial within a trinundinum after the appeal was made. 2. The verdict of the comitia in an administrative court proceeding shall be made in form of a lex which describes the order or procedural instruction to the magistrate, officer or other administrative institution of Nova Roma the actions of which were called into revision by the administrative court, that is, the administrative solution which was favored by the comitia. 3. The verdict of the comitia in a constitutional court proceeding shall be made in form of a lex describing the version of the interpretation of law which was favored by the comitia.