It is not surprising that an RC can only see a 'supreme' role of Rome in this but the Orthodox sees the snag.
1) The Greek version does not exactly state 'appeal' (a word often used elsewhere in the canons) but a hearing based upon a 'fresh matter' (new evidence?)
2) the Latin version does read more to the right of appeal irrespective of the evidence.
3) In neither reading is a right of Rome to intercede over the entire church implied over these matters but only an appeal role, as still wielded by Constantinople today. And, of course, this was made in Sardica, an area of contention between Rome and Constantinople and in a period when this area would have been under Rome to start with. Once the 7th Ecumenical Council affirmed it, it could be construed beyond Rome's see. But was that the intention? Rome would say yes, the East, no. In any case it is confusing (as the CCEL commentary shows in trying to decipher it).