Thursday, August 19, 2010

Blog Statistics for 2009



Top 10 visitors by country/territory:
1. Taiwan
2. United States
3. Hong Kong
4. Australia
5. Canada
6. United Kingdom
7. Singapore
8. China
9. Japan
10. South Korea

Top keywords used to find this blog:
1. taiwan law

Top 4 search engines used:
4. Bing

Top referring websites:

New Visitors: 56.09%
Returning Visitors: 43.91%


Wednesday, July 14, 2010

J.Y. Interpretation 678

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。






Sunday, April 18, 2010

J.Y. Interpretation 675



On 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。



Thursday, April 1, 2010

J.Y. Interpretation 673


On 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稅款,按應扣未扣或短扣之稅額處三倍之罰鍰部分,尚未牴觸憲法第二十三條比例原則,與憲法第十五條保障人民財產權之意旨無違。



上開所得稅法第一百十四條第一款後段,有關扣繳義務人不按實補報扣繳憑單者,應按應扣未扣或短扣之稅額處三倍之罰鍰部分,未賦予稅捐稽徵機關得參酌具體違章狀況,按情節輕重裁量罰鍰之數額,其處罰顯已逾越必要程度,就此範圍內,不符憲法第二十三條之比例原則,與憲法第十五條保障人民財產權之意旨有違,應自本解釋公布之日起停止適用。有關機關對未於限期內按實補報扣繳憑單,而處罰尚未確定之案件,應斟酌個案情節輕重,並參酌稅捐稽徵法第四十八條之三之規定,另為符合比例原則之適當處置,併予指明。









Thursday, March 18, 2010

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.


Tuesday, February 16, 2010

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。