COSA GIUDICATA
The term *cosa giudicata* (res judicata) has a twofold meaning. Understood in the formal sense, it represents the concept of the unassailable nature of a judgment and the consequent stability of the legal situations defined by the judgment in accordance with social needs. From this perspective, the *Codex Iuris Canonici* (CIC) establishes that *cosa giudicata* occurs whenever a judgment has become final, regardless of whether extraordinary remedies (such as restitutio in integrum, a plea of nullity, recourse to the Holy See, or third-party opposition, cf. can. 1569) may still be pursued against II. Understood, instead, in the substantive sense, *cosa giudicata* consists in the obligatory force of the judgment for future proceedings and thus in the executory action (*actio iudicati*) recognized in favor of the party for whose benefit the judgment was rendered against the losing party, as well as in the power (*exceptio rei iudicatae*) vested in each party to prevent a new decision from being formed on matters already adjudicated and to obtain judicial recognition of the existence of the res judicata in any subsequent causes where it logically forms a presupposition.
As for the limits of *cosa giudicata*, these are determined from a twofold aspect: objective and subjective. From the objective standpoint, it is confined to what formed the subject matter of the judgment, namely, what was requested by the plaintiff (*petitum*) and the legal basis of the claim (*causa petendi*). From the subjective standpoint, *cosa giudicata* binds not only the parties but also third parties, provided that no legal prejudice accrues to them therefrom.
If a third party suffers only a factual prejudice, they are bound by the res judicata and may not defend themselves otherwise than by resorting to the remedy of third-party opposition, which remedy may, however, also be used by a third party who suffers legal prejudice—this most commonly occurring when the material coexistence of the third party’s right with a judgment recognizing another incompatible right effectively diminishes the enjoyment of the third party’s right.
According to canon law, *cosa giudicata* arises in the following ways: a) when there are two conforming judgments; b) when an appeal is not lodged or pursued within the prescribed time limits (cf. *APPELLO*); c) in the event of the peremption (cf. *perenzione*) of the appeal or the renunciation thereof (cc. 1736 and 1741); d) finally, when the judgment is not subject to appeal (cc. 1884).
In canon law, moreover, the principle obtains that judgments rendered in causes concerning the status of persons—such as those relating to the matrimonial bond, the personal separation of spouses, ordination, and religious profession—never pass into *cosa giudicata*; for these causes, therefore, judicial re-examination is always permissible, provided that new and weighty arguments or documents are adduced (cc. 1903).
In matrimonial causes, there is added the principle established by can. 1897, whereby the defender of the bond is granted unconditional leave to appeal even after two conforming judgments have declared the nullity of the marriage.
The re-examination in question assumes the nature of an appeal, inasmuch as it occasions a further presentation of the cause before a higher judge, and it may be sought at any time.
Fernando Della Rocca