**QUERELA** — The term designates, even in canon law, procedural institutions aimed at achieving different objectives. Of these institutions, the *querela falsi* and the *querela nullitatis* are governed by the rules regulating the ordinary process, while the *querela damni* and the *querela delicti* pertain to criminal procedure, which canon law considers a special process.
The *querela damni* is a means provided by the *Codex Iuris Canonici* (CIC) to initiate criminal action. This action is, as a rule (with the exception noted below), reserved to the Promoter of Justice (can. 1934). However, the Promoter of Justice may receive notice of the crime from the injured party, who is the passive subject of the offense, i.e., the party directly harmed by II. In this case, the injured party, in order to seek compensation for damages, brings the crime to the attention of the Promoter of Justice through a specific act called *querela*, which prompts the initiation of criminal action by the Promoter of Justice (can. 1935 § 1). On the other hand, a simple denunciation by any faithful is sufficient when the purpose is the reparation of scandal or harm to the community (ibid.).
The *querela delicti* represents an exception to the aforementioned rule regarding the function of the Promoter of Justice in matters of criminal actions. Indeed, for crimes of insult or defamation, the *querela* of the injured party is always necessary to initiate criminal action, unless the insult or defamation is grave and directed against a cleric or religious, or is committed by a cleric or religious against others. In these cases, criminal action may be initiated *ex officio* (can. 1938, with reference also to can. 1618).
The *querela falsi* is a means granted by the law specifically to obtain a declaration of the falsity of a document, whether public or private, produced in court. It is admissible as long as the document has not been recognized as genuine by a final civil or criminal judgment, and it may be brought either in the principal action, thereby initiating an autonomous proceeding for verification, or incidentally. When bringing the *querela*, all constitutive elements and evidence of the falsity must be indicated. Given the delicacy of the matter, the judge, before admitting the *querela* and proceeding with its instruction, must consult the party against whom the *querela* is brought to ascertain whether they intend to maintain the judicial exhibition of the contested document. If the response is affirmative and the *querela* is admitted (cf. cans. 1709 and 1839), the judge orders the deposit of the document with the court clerk to ensure its secure preservation.
Proof of the falsity may be provided by any means of instruction, to be gathered within the terms and manner established, if necessary, by the judge, to whose discretion is also left the evaluation of whether to suspend or proceed with the main cause (cf. cans. 1627 ff. and 1839). The Promoter of Justice must intervene in the judgment of the *querela falsi* (cf. can. 1586).
The judgment declaring the falsity of a document prescribes measures regarding its possible correction, destruction, or restitution and has res judicata effect with respect to all parties. Conversely, the rejection of the *querela* does not imply any implicit declaration of the document’s genuineness; this must be expressly stated.
The *querela nullitatis* is an extraordinary means of impugning a judgment admitted by the CIC in cases where a judgment is affected by nullity (v.).
With regard to its nature, the defect of nullity in a judgment may be curable or incurable, depending on whether the parties can or cannot renounce the right to invoke II. Hence the dual regulation of the *querela*.
A judgment is affected by incurable nullity:
1) when it has been pronounced by a judge absolutely incompetent or by a collegial judge not constituted according to the provisions of can. 1576 § 1 (can. 1892, n. 1);
2) when it has been pronounced against one or more parties who could not legitimately appear in the trial due to an absolute lack of *legitimatio ad processum* or *legitimatio ad causam* (can. 1892, n. 2; cf. cans. 1646, 1654);
3) when one or more persons who were in the trial *nomine alterius* lacked a legitimate mandate (can. 1892, n. 3). In the case of incurable nullity, this last ground of nullity does not disappear through ratification.
A judgment is affected by curable nullity when there has been a failure to properly cite the parties, or when the judgment itself lacks the required reasons (except in this case the provisions of can. 1605), the prescribed signatures, or the indication of the date (year, month, and day) and place of its issuance (can. 1894).
Nullities may be invoked either by way of exception or through the *querela nullitatis*. While the *exceptio nullitatis* may be proposed without time limitation and is generally used in opposition to the execution of the judgment, the *querela nullitatis* must be brought within thirty years, running from the day of the publication of the judgment if the nullity is incurable, or within three months if the nullity is curable.
The judge before whom the *querela nullitatis* is to be brought is the one who rendered the judgment under attack. An exception to this rule applies to the *querela nullitatis* for curable nullity when it is brought jointly with an appeal, in which case the competence of the appellate judge prevails (can. 1895), and to the *querela nullitatis* against sentences of the Roman Rota, which is reserved to the Apostolic Signatura, unless it is cumulated with an appeal, in which case the competence of the higher court to which the appellate judge is assigned prevails (can. 1603 § 1, n. 3). When the same person who issued the judgment is competent to judge the nullity and the plaintiff fears that the judge may not be sufficiently impartial, the judge is considered *ipso facto* suspect and is replaced in the same court by another judge (cans. 1615 and 1896). This is, as is evident, a special case of recusal, the ground for which rests simply on the fact that the judge has issued a null judgment.
The *querela nullitatis* is governed in its procedural development by the common norms. It is initiated by a judicial petition appended in the form of a libellus, which must contain all the necessary elements identifying the cause (parties, judge, judgment), as well as the grounds for the impugnation (defects of the judgment). The judge, after examining the acts, if the *querela* does not appear manifestly unfounded, will order the citation of the other parties, the Promoter of Justice (since the public interest in the accusation of nullity of a judgment is involved), and the defender of the bond if they were involved in the trial. The litigation will proceed in the ordinary forms and will concern the procedural question of the validity of the judgment and whether the trial should be renewed. The judgment may declare the nullity, in which case it will also rule on the merits, unless the *querela* has been judged by the Signatura, which is obliged to remit the parties for a decision on the merits to the Roman Rota (can. 1604 § 3). If evidence is necessary, it will be produced according to the common rules during the instructional phase. The judgment, in any case, will rule on judicial expenses and will be subject, like any other judgment, to all means of appeal.
If the question of nullity is brought cumulatively with the appeal, the proceedings shall be initiated by an act in which the grounds of appeal and the grounds of nullity must be indicated, and shall proceed according to the rules laid down for appeals. The sentence, recognizing the nullity of the sentence appealed against, shall remit the parties to the merits before the judge a quo.
The expiry of the term implies the sanation of the defect even if the relevant ground of nullity—having a public interest—has not been raised by the promoter of justice in the question of nullity, save for the retractability of the sentence in accordance with cann. 1903 and 1989.
The effect of upholding the question of nullity consists in the restoration of the procedural situation as it existed prior to the pronouncement of the null sentence, regardless of whether or not such sentence has been executed.
As for the acts of the proceedings concluded by the sentence declared null, they may remain valid and thus processually usable only in the case where the sentence is affected by nullity due to a defect inherent to itself (e.g., insufficient number of judges) and not due to a reflected defect (absolute incompetence of the judge, lack of standing to litigate).