J.Y. Interpretation 662 - English Version

On 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 Constitution?

Holding:

Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the current Penal Code, amended and promulgated as of February 2, 2005, which precludes the application of Paragraph 1 of the same provision on sentences convertible into fines in the event the merger of executable sentences for several offenses that exceeds six months of imprisonment, even with each sentence that may be convertible into fines, violates Article 23 of the Constitution and J. Y. Interpretation No. 366, and shall be invalid on the issuance date this Interpretation.

With regard to the part that concerns temporary disposition in accordance with Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the Penal Code, as requested by the two petitioners, there is no need to provide further review in light of this Interpretation. In addition, with regard to the constitutional interpretation filed by one of the petitioners concerning Article 53 of the Penal Code, given that this part of the petition is dismissed, the related temporary disposition is no longer pendent and shall also be dismissed.

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.

J.Y. Interpretation 669

On 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，致罪責與處罰不相對應。首揭規定有關空氣槍部分，對犯該罪而情節輕微者，未併為得減輕其刑或另為適當刑度之規定，對人民受憲法第八條保障人身自由權所為之限制，有違憲法第二十三條之比例原則，應自本解釋公布之日起至遲於一年屆滿時，失其效力。

釋字第669號解釋新聞稿

許大法官宗力提出之協同意見書

黃大法官茂榮提出之協同意見書

陳大法官新民提出之協同意見書

許大法官玉秀、林大法官子儀共同提出之協同意見書

J.Y. Interpretation 668

On 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，自本解釋公布之日起，應適用現行繼承法制，辦理繼承事宜。

釋字第668號解釋新聞稿

許大法官玉秀提出之協同意見書

黃大法官茂榮提出之協同意見書

徐大法官璧湖及池大法官啟明共同提出之不同意見書

陳大法官新民提出之不同意見書

陳大法官春生提出之不同意見書