Free_Law_Journal-Vol.. - Free World Publishing Inc.

FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 (18 JULY 2005)
If the plaintiff invokes an action with the same reference to the same contentious issue before the court
once again because he was cast in the first action or the first action has expired despite that no decision is
given, praetor rejects this demand (denegatio actionis). Praetor, gives this decision spontaneously 29 .
In personal actions which derived from the authority of a magistrate and have formulas with in factum
concepta and also in real actions, praetor does not turn definite judgement to account by himself
spontaneously. Bis de eadem re ne sit actio principle, can be taken into account during the action by an
exception called exceptio rei iudicatae vel in iudicium deductae –exceptio about definite judgement or
concluded joinder of issue 30 . To use this exceptio, only the conclusion of joinder of issue of the action is
sufficient 31 . The obligation which is the subject of the action is accepted to be removed by the conclusion
of joinder of issue of the first action 32 .
In the formulary system of Roman procedural law, to apply bis de eadem re ne sit actio principle, the first
action and the subsequent action must be the same. This is called eadem res 33 . According to Roman law
eadem res can only exist, if the subject of the demand (idem corpus), the legal characteristics of the
demand (idem ius), the legal causes of the demand (eadem causa petendi) and the parties of the demand
(eadem condicio personarum) are same in the first and the subsequent actions 34 . Sameness of the parties
forms the subjective similarity; Sameness of the subject forms the objective similarity. Objective and
subjective similarities must be together at the same time so that eadem res exists and exception of definite
29 Arangio-Ruiz, V.: Storia del Diritto Romano, 7. Ed. con Note Aggiunte, Naples, 1957, p. 163; Betti, E.; Istitutizione di
Diritto Romano, V. I, Parte Generale, Padova, 1960, p. 601 sq.; Tahiroglu/ Erdogmus, (Procedure), p. 28; Wenger, p. 177-8.
30 “Gai, 3, 181; Unde fit, ut si legitimo iudicio debitum petiero, postea de eo ipso iure agere non possim, quia inutiliter intendo.
Dari mihi oportere, quia litis contestatione dari oportere desiit, aliter atque si imperio continenti iudicio egerim; tunc enim
nihilo minus obligatio durat, et ideo ipse iure postea agere possum, sed debeo per exceptionem rei iudicatae vel in iudicium
deductae summoveri. quae autem legitima sint iudicia et quae imperio continentia sequenti commentario referemus; Hence if I
bring a legally authorized action for the collection of a debt, I can not afterwards, under strict rule of law, sue a second time, as
the statement that the defendant is required to pay me something will be without effect; for the reason that by joinder of issue,
he ceases to be obliged to make payment. The case is different if in the first place I brought an action derived from the authority
of a magistrate, for then the obligation will still continue to exist and therefore, by the strict rule of law, I can bring another
action; but I can be barred by an exception grounded on a previous judgement, or on a former joinder of issue. We shall explain
in a subsequent Commentary what actions are authorized by law and what are derived from the authority of a magistrate.
Wenger, p. 179; Buckland, W. W.; A Text-Book of Roman law from Augustus to Justinian, Cambridge, 1932, p. 697; Excepti
rei iudicatae, not only merely bars the same action between the same parties, but also enforces the principle, as between parties
bound by the judgement.
31 Roby, p. 262; Tahiroglu/ Erdogmus, (Procedure), p. 28;.
32 Tahiroglu/ Erdogmus, (Matters), p. 195; Wenger, p. 120; D. 44, 2, 12, Paul. 70 ad ed.: Cum quaeritur, haecexceptio noceat
nec ne, Inspiciendum est, an idem corpus sit; D. 44, 2, 3, Ulp. 75 ad ed.: Iulianus libro tertio digestorum respondit exceptionem
rei iudicatae obstare, quotiens eadem quaestio inter easdem personas revocatur. The plaintiff can be barred by the exception
when he brings the same contentious issue before the court, suing the same person. These texts show that, when eadem res
exists, bis de eadem re ne sit actio principle is applied and in such a situation, the second action can be hindered by an exceptio
rei iudicatae. But, of course the type of action must be kept in mind. Some other Roman law texts mentioning this topic can be
given as example; D. 44, 2, 14 pr., Paul. 70 ad ed.: et an eadem causa petendi et eadem condicio Personarum: quae nisi omnia
concurrunt, alia res est. Idem corpus in hac ecte optione non utique omni pristina qualitate vel quantitate servata, nulla
diectione deminutioneve facta, sed pinguius pro communi utilitate accipitur.
D. 44, 2, 27, Ner. 7 membr.: Cum de hoc, an eadem res est, quaeritur, haec spectanda sunt personae, id ipsum de quo agitur,
causa proxima actionis. Nec iam interest, qua ratione, quis eam causam actionis competere sibi existimasset, perinde ac si
quis, posteaquam contra eum iudicatum esset, nova instrumenta causae repperisset.
33 Berger, A.; Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Philadelphia, 1968, p. 132; Eadem res means the same object. This
expression is used to explain bis de eadem re ne sit actio principle. It rests on the notion that an issue once decided must not be
raised again.
34 D. 44, 2, 27; D. 44, 2, 12-13.
GOKCE TURKOGLU-OZDEMIR - “BIS DE EADEM RE NE SIT ACTIO” PRINCIPLE IN THE FORMULARY SYSTEM OF ROMAN LAW OF PROCEDURE 145