Administrative courts of Nova Roma

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.

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

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). [General administrative complaints]

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

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.

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.

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.

III. 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.

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 whom 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 48 hours of notification to the actor and reus. <Information on summary judgements here>

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 (24 days) 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 actor's claim 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 demosntrating 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. 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.

REMAINING TEXT UNDER DEVELOPMENT

Administrative courts of Nova Roma

Contents

I. Introduction to the Administrative Court

II. Classification of cases before the Administrative Court

A. Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) Administrative Court cases

B. Forum Management (Triumviral) Administrative Court cases

C. Civic (Aedilician) Administrative Court cases

III. Magisterial jurisdiction of the different cases

Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) cases

Forum Management (Triumviral) cases

Civic (Aedilician) cases

III. Proceedings of Adminstrative Court Cases

Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) cases

Summary Judgement

Proceeding to trial

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Toolbox