tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13609795194276937762024-03-04T22:05:07.012-08:00The Taiwan Law BlogA blog dedicated to the legal system in Taiwan.The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.comBlogger346125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-49948293637172953102014-09-23T18:30:00.004-07:002014-09-23T18:32:20.242-07:00Taiwan in Comparative PerspectiveTaiwan in Comparative Perspective: Volume 5 (2014): Special Issue on Taiwan and Hong Hong in Comparative Perspective http://bit.ly/XYm9BmThe Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-75989327072542426192013-03-16T08:43:00.003-07:002013-03-16T08:45:29.931-07:00ICCPR & ICESCR Committee ReportsReview of the Initial Reports of the Government of Taiwan on the Implementation of the Int'l Human Rights Covenants - http://bit.ly/Y4S3rTThe Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-86906428082432319062012-04-21T14:09:00.000-07:002012-04-21T14:10:49.001-07:00Taiwan released its first human rights report based on the ICCPR and ICESCR
State Report:
http://t.co/pwX1CAzh
CNA News Report:
http://bit.ly/IcK7KGThe Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-28134157409551446462011-06-26T09:33:00.001-07:002011-06-26T09:34:05.400-07:00J.Y. Interpretation 687On May 27, 2011, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 687. It asks:對故意致公司逃漏稅捐之公司負責人一律處徒刑之規定,違憲?Holding:中華民國六十五年十月二十二日制定公布之稅捐稽徵法第四十七條第一款規定:「本法關於納稅義務人……應處徒刑之規定,於左列之人適用之:一、公司法規定之公司負責人。」(即九十八年五月二十七日修正公布之同條第一項第一款)係使公司負責人因自己之刑事違法且有責之行為,承擔刑事責任,與無責任即無處罰之憲法原則並無牴觸。至「應處徒刑之規定」部分,有違憲法第七條之平等原則,應自本解釋公布日起,至遲於屆滿一年時,失其效力。釋字第687號新聞稿林大法官錫堯提出之協同意見書蔡大法官清遊提出之協同意見書黃大法官茂榮提出之協同意見書許大法官玉秀提出之The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-76971024939680808562011-04-28T14:23:00.001-07:002011-04-28T14:23:54.134-07:00J.Y. Interpretation 686On March 25, 2011, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 686. It asks:解釋公布前以同一法令合法提請解釋未併案之不同聲請人,是否同為解釋效力所及?Holding:本院就人民聲請解釋之案件作成解釋公布前,原聲請人以外之人以同一法令牴觸憲法疑義聲請解釋,雖未合併辦理,但其聲請經本院大法官決議認定符合法定要件者,其據以聲請之案件,亦可適用本院釋字第一七七號解釋所稱「本院依人民聲請所為之解釋,對聲請人據以聲請之案件,亦有效力」。本院釋字第一九三號解釋應予補充。釋字第686號新聞稿黃大法官茂榮提出之部分協同、部分不同意見書陳大法官新民提出之不同意見書徐大法官璧湖提出之不同意見書The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-75980653992071016692010-12-24T18:08:00.001-08:002010-12-24T18:08:36.629-08:00J.Y. Interpretation 683On December 24, 2010, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 683. It asks:勞保現金給付未於收到申請十日內發給,違憲?Holding:中華民國八十五年九月十三日修正發布之勞工保險條例施行細則第五十七條規定:「被保險人或其受益人申請現金給付手續完備經審查應予發給者,保險人應於收到申請書之日起十日內發給之。」旨在促使勞工保險之保險人儘速完成勞工保險之現金給付,以保障被保險勞工或其受益人於保險事故發生後之生活,符合憲法保護勞工基本國策之本旨。釋字第683號新聞稿林大法官錫堯提出之協同意見書許大法官宗力提出之協同意見書葉大法官百修提出之協同意見書黃大法官茂榮提出之協同意見書陳大法官新民提出之部分不同意見書The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-83240288927259223912010-11-03T04:53:00.000-07:002010-11-03T04:54:26.466-07:00President and Vice President of the Judicial YuanThe bios for the new President and Vice President of the Judicial Yuan were published.The Honorable Chief Justice & President of Judicial Yuan Hau-Min Rai The Honorable Justice & Vice President of Judicial Yuan Yeong-Chin Su The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-66497157593043505792010-09-27T04:50:00.000-07:002010-09-27T04:51:27.770-07:00J.Y. Interpretation 681On September 9, 2010, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 681. It asks:不服撤銷假釋處分,不得提起行政爭訟;如有異議,應俟執行殘刑時,向原裁判法院為之,違憲?Holding:最高行政法院中華民國九十三年二月份庭長法官聯席會議決議:「假釋之撤銷屬刑事裁判執行之一環,為廣義之司法行政處分,如有不服,其救濟程序,應依刑事訴訟法第四百八十四條之規定,即俟檢察官指揮執行該假釋撤銷後之殘餘徒刑時,再由受刑人或其法定代理人或配偶向當初諭知該刑事裁判之法院聲明異議,不得提起行政爭訟。」及刑事訴訟法第四百八十四條規定:「受刑人或其法定代理人或配偶以檢察官執行之指揮為不當者,得向諭知該裁判之法院聲明異議。」並未剝奪人民就撤銷假釋處分依法向法院提起訴訟尋求救濟之機會,與憲法The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-58709364831446804762010-08-19T01:52:00.000-07:002010-08-19T01:57:43.201-07:00Blog Statistics for 2009Top 10 visitors by country/territory:1. Taiwan2. United States3. Hong Kong4. Australia5. Canada6. United Kingdom7. Singapore8. China9. Japan10. South KoreaTop keywords used to find this blog:1. taiwan lawTop 4 search engines used:1. Google2. Yahoo3. Search4. BingTop referring websites:1. blogger.com2. twitter.comNew Visitors: 56.09%Returning Visitors: 43.91%The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-50019874902665265582010-07-14T23:44:00.000-07:002010-07-14T23:45:08.290-07:00J.Y. Interpretation 678On July 2, 2010, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 678. It asks:電信法就無線電頻率使用應經許可,違者處刑罰並沒收器材等規定違憲?Holding:電信法第四十八條第一項前段、第五十八條第二項及第六十條關於未經核准擅自使用無線電頻率者,應予處罰及沒收之規定部分,與憲法第二十三條之比例原則尚無牴觸,亦與憲法第十一條保障人民言論自由、第十五條保障人民財產權之意旨無違。678新聞稿許大法官宗力提出之協同意見書葉大法官百修提出之協同意見書陳大法官新民提出之協同意見書黃大法官茂榮提出之協同意見書陳大法官春生提出之協同意見書林大法官子儀、李大法官震山共同提出之部分協同、部分不同意見書許大法官玉秀提出之一部協同一部不同意見書The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-4470319562584009532010-04-18T05:18:00.000-07:002010-04-18T05:19:53.775-07:00J.Y. Interpretation 675On April 9, 2010, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 675. It asks:金融重建基金設置及管理條例,對經營不善金融機構非存款債務不賠付之規定違憲?Holding:中華民國九十四年六月二十二日修正公布之行政院金融重建基金設置及管理條例第四條第五項,關於「本條例修正施行後,主管機關或農業金融中央主管機關處理經營不善金融機構時,該金融機構非存款債務不予賠付」之規定,就非存款債務不予賠付部分,旨在增進行政院金融重建基金之使用效益,保障金融機構存款人權益及穩定金融信用秩序,其目的洵屬正當,該手段與立法目的之達成具有合理關聯性,與憲法第七條規定尚無牴觸。675號新聞稿葉大法官百修協同意見書黃大法官茂榮協同意見書池大法官啟明、徐大法官璧湖共同提出部分不同意見書The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-75747778323684167932010-04-01T18:16:00.000-07:002010-04-01T18:17:55.754-07:00J.Y. Interpretation 673On March 26, 2010, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 673. It asks:所得稅法就扣繳義務人及違背扣繳義務之處罰等規定違憲?Holding:中華民國七十八年十二月三十日修正公布之所得稅法第八十九條第一項第二款前段,有關以機關、團體之主辦會計人員為扣繳義務人部分,及八十八年二月九日修正公布與九十五年五月三十日修正公布之同條款前段,關於以事業負責人為扣繳義務人部分,與憲法第二十三條比例原則尚無牴觸。七十八年十二月三十日修正公布及九十年一月三日修正公布之所得稅法第一百十四條第一款,有關限期責令扣繳義務人補繳應扣未扣或短扣之稅款及補報扣繳憑單,暨就已於限期內補繳應扣未扣或短扣之稅款及補報扣繳憑單,按應扣未扣或短扣之稅額處一倍之罰鍰部分;就未於限期內補繳應扣未扣或短扣之The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-32303425845955735872010-03-18T18:42:00.000-07:002010-03-18T18:43:30.473-07:00J.Y. Interpretation 662 - English VersionOn March 16, 2010 the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued the English translation of J.Y. Interpretation 662, it asks:Does Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the Penal Code, which stipulates that for several offenses each carries a sentence convertible to fines, if the merged executable sentence should exceed six months, then the final sentence may not be converted to fines, violate the The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-67365604869656490062010-02-16T18:01:00.000-08:002010-02-16T18:01:00.536-08:00J.Y. Interpretation 671On January 29, 2009, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 671. It asks:土地登記規則第107條違憲?憲法第十五條關於人民財產權應予保障之規定,旨在確保個人依財產之存續狀態行使其自由使用、收益及處分之權能,不得因他人之法律行為而受侵害。分別共有不動產之應有部分,於設定抵押權後,共有物經分割者,其抵押權不因此而受影響(民法第八百二十五條及第八百六十八條規定參照)。於分割前未先徵得抵押權人同意者,於分割後,自係以原設定抵押權而經分別轉載於各宗土地之應有部分,為抵押權之客體。是強制執行時,係以分割後各宗土地經轉載抵押權之應有部分為其執行標的物。於拍定後,因拍定人取得抵押權客體之應有部分,由拍定人與其他共有人,就該不動產全部回復共有關係,其他共有人回復分割前之應有The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-34575717672340341072010-02-13T17:59:00.000-08:002010-02-13T17:59:00.773-08:00J.Y. Interpretation 670On January 29, 2009, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 670. It asks:冤賠法第2條第3款因故意或重大過失受押不賠償違憲?受無罪判決確定之受害人,因有故意或重大過失行為致依刑事訴訟法第一百零一條第一項或軍事審判法第一百零二條第一項受羈押者,依冤獄賠償法第二條第三款規定,不得請求賠償,並未斟酌受害人致受羈押之行為,係涉嫌實現犯罪構成要件或係妨礙、誤導偵查審判,亦無論受害人致受羈押行為可歸責程度之輕重及因羈押所受損失之大小,皆一律排除全部之補償請求,並非避免補償失當或浮濫等情事所必要,不符冤獄賠償法對個別人民身體之自由,因實現國家刑罰權之公共利益,受有超越一般應容忍程度之特別犧牲時,給予所規範之補償,以符合憲法保障人民身體自由及平等權之立法意旨,而與憲法第二The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-32683268451708639382010-02-11T17:58:00.000-08:002010-02-11T17:59:24.738-08:00J.Y. Interpretation 663 - English VersionOn January 26, 2010 the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued the English translation of J.Y. Interpretation 663, it asks:Is the stipulation that the legal effect of the service of process to any individual joint owner will be applied to all joint owners as though all have been timely served under Article 19, Paragraph 3 of the Tax Levy Act in contravention of the Constitution?Holding:The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-56847687145283961402010-01-15T18:00:00.000-08:002010-01-15T18:01:33.803-08:00J.Y. Interpretation 669On December 25, 2009, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 669. It asks:槍砲條例第8條第1項關於空氣槍之處罰規定違憲?槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例第八條第一項規定:「未經許可,製造、販賣或運輸鋼筆槍、瓦斯槍、麻醉槍、獵槍、空氣槍或第四條第一項第一款所定其他可發射金屬或子彈具有殺傷力之各式槍砲者,處無期徒刑或五年以上有期徒刑,併科新臺幣一千萬元以下罰金。」其中以未經許可製造、販賣、運輸具殺傷力之空氣槍為處罰要件部分,不論行為人犯罪情節之輕重,均以無期徒刑或五年以上有期徒刑之重度自由刑相繩,對違法情節輕微、顯可憫恕之個案,法院縱適用刑法第五十九條規定酌減其刑,最低刑度仍達二年六月以上之有期徒刑,無從具體考量行為人所應負責任之輕微,為易科罰金或緩刑之宣告,尚嫌情輕法重The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-25873764684536254542009-12-11T05:12:00.000-08:002009-12-11T05:13:48.198-08:00J.Y. Interpretation 668On December 11, 2009, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 668. It asks:繼承開始於繼承編施行前,而得選定繼承人者,僅限施行前選定?民法繼承編施行法第八條規定:「繼承開始在民法繼承編施行前,被繼承人無直系血親卑親屬,依當時之法律亦無其他繼承人者,自施行之日起,依民法繼承編之規定定其繼承人。」其所定「依當時之法律亦無其他繼承人者」,應包含依當時之法律不能產生選定繼承人之情形,故繼承開始於民法繼承編施行前,依當時之法規或習慣得選定繼承人者,不以在民法繼承編施行前選定為限。惟民法繼承編施行於臺灣已逾六十四年,為避免民法繼承編施行前開始之繼承關係久懸不決,有礙民法繼承法秩序之安定,凡繼承開始於民法繼承編施行前,而至本解釋公布之日止,尚未合法選定繼承人者,自本解釋The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-56053556816461217062009-10-17T17:26:00.000-07:002009-10-17T17:27:55.125-07:00J.Y. Interpretation 665On October 16, 2009, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 665. It asks:1.臺北地院刑庭分案要點就相牽連案件併案規定;2.刑訴法重罪羈押、檢察官於審判中對停止羈押裁判抗告權規定,合憲?一、臺灣臺北地方法院刑事庭分案要點第十點及第四十三點規定,與憲法第十六條保障人民訴訟權之意旨,尚無違背。二、刑事訴訟法第一百零一條第一項第三款規定,於被告犯該款規定之罪,犯罪嫌疑重大,且有相當理由認為有逃亡、湮滅、偽造、變造證據或勾串共犯或證人之虞,非予羈押,顯難進行追訴、審判或執行者,得羈押之。於此範圍內,該條款規定符合憲法第二十三條之比例原則,與憲法第八條保障人民身體自由及第十六條保障人民訴訟權之意旨,尚無牴觸。三、刑事訴訟法第四百零三條第一項關於檢察官對於審判中法院所為The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-39573054308515196272009-09-07T15:06:00.000-07:002009-09-07T15:08:28.406-07:00Wrap-up for week 1 of September at www.taiwanlawresources.comReview of bill closed to rights groups - [Taipei Times]Some new English news on the Intellectual Property Office websiteJudicial Yuan News Release Judicial Yuan Promotes Speedy and Fair TrialsTaiwan Business Indicators in July 2009 - [Council for Economic Planning and Development ]The 3rd Asian Forum for Constitutional Law, Sept. 25-26Follow me on Twitter.The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-89379904661983183852009-08-19T15:27:00.000-07:002009-08-19T15:31:11.268-07:00Wrap-up for week 2 of August at www.taiwanlawresources.comForeign ministry drafting int'l cooperation and development lawTaiwan: Typhoon disaster and call for volunteers - [Global Voices]English translation of J.Y. Interpretation 656 issued - (regarding reputation)Company Act Revised for Better Protection of Shareholder Interests - [Council for Econ Planning and Dev]The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-26232059174245369142009-07-28T10:00:00.000-07:002009-07-28T10:02:41.310-07:00Wrap-up for week 4 of July at www.taiwanlawresources.comEnglish translation of J.Y. Interpretation 654 issued - (regarding Detention Act)'The 3rd Asian Forum for Constitutional Law' held at the NTU College of Law - September 25-26Taiwan Economic Forum (Volume 7, Number 7, July 2009) - [Council for Economic Planning and Development]English translation of J.Y. Interpretation No.647 and No.643 issuedThe Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-11731280497442466312009-07-21T08:59:00.000-07:002009-07-21T09:00:26.870-07:00Wrap-up for week 3 of July at www.taiwanlawresources.comTaiwan New Economy Newsletter No.102 - [Council for Economic Planning and Development]Judicial Yuan Authorizes Convenience Stores to Collect Judicial Fees under NT$20,000Workshop on Public Health: Health Policy, Legal Issues and Trade / July 23 and 24, 2009The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-27642081176766217302009-07-14T06:05:00.000-07:002009-07-14T06:06:36.804-07:00Wrap-up for week 2 of July at www.taiwanlawresources.comTaiwan Statistical Data Book 2009Justice and Defense ministries present corruption reportsGLIN Taiwan - Amended Laws Announcement for July - Part IIJ.Y. Interpretation 663The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1360979519427693776.post-57444438847107720052009-07-06T05:42:00.000-07:002009-07-06T05:44:02.078-07:00Wrap-up for week 1 of July at www.taiwanlawresources.comGLIN Taiwan - Amended Laws Announcement for July - Part I National Taiwan University College of Law - New Buildings Taiwan Business Indicators in May 2009The Taiwan Law Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09554840641951244298noreply@blogger.com0