J.Y. Interpretation 671

On 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部分，經轉載之應有部分抵押權因已實行而消滅，從而得以維護其他共有人及抵押權人之權益。準此，中華民國九十年九月十四日修正發布之土地登記規則第一百零七條之規定，符合民法規定之意旨，亦與憲法第十五條保障人民財產權之規定，尚無牴觸。

J.Y. Interpretation 670

On 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，而與憲法第二十三條之比例原則有違，應自本解釋公布之日起至遲於屆滿二年時失其效力。

J.Y. Interpretation 663 - English Version

On 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:

Article 19, Paragraph 3, of the Tax Levy Act stipulates that for all kinds of notifications issued for the purpose of tax collection, “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.” When applied to the administrative act of tax assessment, the quoted stipulation will produce the legal effect that a service of process to any individual joint owner will be deemed as services of process to all joint owners. It is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of due process of law and infringes the constitutional rights of the joint owners who are never actually served both to institute administrative appeals and to institute legal proceedings, and is hence in contravention of Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the quoted stipulation shall be inapplicable no later than two years after we hand down this interpretation.