I. Ecclesiastical Criminal Offenses.
1. Aside from minor violations, which, as previously noted, are handled by the abbot and the epitropi and whose decisions cannot be overturned (Art. 47 of the Charter), there are a number of penalties imposed by primary courts that are also final and cannot be overturned (Art. 71 of the Charter in relation with Art. 12 of the Legislative Decree dated September 10/16, 1926). These penalties include: praying with a prayer rope, fasting for a period of up to forty days, removal from service, confinement of the offender within the monastery or one of its dependencies or another monastery (penalty duration up to one year), exclusion from the meetings of the monastic synaxis (penalty duration up to one year), and deprivation of the right to perform sacred rites (penalty duration up to three months).
2. Any primary court decision imposing a penalty heavier than those listed above is subject to appeal in the secondary court within fifteen days after the decision of guilt is communicated to the accused. Appeals submitted after this period will not be accepted (Art. 72 of the Charter). Filing an appeal does not delay the execution of the primary court's decision (Art. 75 of the Charter).
The appeal must be submitted by the accused themselves, detailing the formal and substantive reasons justifying it. The primary court is obliged to forward the appeal to the secondary court within five days, along with a document confirming that the court's decision was communicated to the accused, together with all case materials. Under no circumstances may the court refuse to accept the appeal for consideration (Art. 73 of the Charter).
The secondary court must begin reviewing the appeal no later than fifteen days after its submission. Once the appeal is confirmed to be well-founded, the court proceeds with a thorough examination of the case’s content and issues a decision that cannot be overturned (Art. 74 of the Charter).
II. Private Law Disputes.
1. Appeals against court decisions regarding boundary disputes and disagreements over debt agreements must be submitted to the higher court within one month after the primary court's decision, along with a document confirming the validity of the appeal (addressed to the higher court but sent to the office of the Holy Community). The Community's office will provide a copy of the document to the opposing party (Art. 28 of the Legislative Decree dated September 10/16, 1926). In this case, the appeal primarily has a suspensive effect on the court's decision unless one of the parties requests, and with the consent of the presiding court, that the decision be executed as a temporary measure (Art. 32 of the Legislative Decree dated September 10/16, 1926). Appeals against decisions of the primary court are submitted through the office of the Holy Community. If, by decision of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate, the case is to be handled by a special court mentioned in Art. 9 paragraph 3 of the Legislative Decree dated September 10/16, 1926, documents are forwarded there as soon as the court is formed, and decisions are made in accordance with Arts. 24-27 of the Legislative Decree dated September 10/16, 1926 (Art. 29 of the legislative act dated September 10/16, 1926).
The secondary court calls the opposing parties for additional hearings in order to present and thoroughly examine the grounds for the appeal. The court may then order the provision of new evidence, confirm or overturn the primary court's decision. Court decisions are made by an absolute majority of the votes of the present court members (Arts. 29-31 of the Legislative Decree dated September 10/16, 1926).
2. Regarding decisions made by the Holy Community issued at the secondary level of judicial proceedings, that is after an appeal, regarding boundary disputes and disagreements over debt agreements, there is a possibility to make a request for a review of the decision by the special court mentioned in Art. 9 of the Legislative Decree dated September 10/16, 1926. However, a review can only be demanded in cases of false interpretation or incorrect application of the provisions of the Constitutional Charter, sacred rules, laws, as well as in cases of neglecting significant data during the consideration of the case from the two lower courts (Art. 10 of the Legislative Decree dated September 10/16, 1926).
