Monday, September 27, 2010
J.Y. Interpretation 681
On 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,與憲法保障訴訟權之意旨尚無牴觸。惟受假釋人之假釋處分經撤銷者,依上開規定向法院聲明異議,須俟檢察官指揮執行殘餘刑期後,始得向法院提起救濟,對受假釋人訴訟權之保障尚非周全,相關機關應儘速予以檢討改進,俾使不服主管機關撤銷假釋之受假釋人,於入監執行殘餘刑期前,得適時向法院請求救濟。
Posted by The Taiwan Law Blogger at 4:50 AM 0 comments
Labels: J.Y. Interpretations, Judicial Yuan
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:
1. Google
2. Yahoo
3. Search
4. Bing
Top referring websites:
1. blogger.com
2. twitter.com
New Visitors: 56.09%
Returning Visitors: 43.91%
Posted by The Taiwan Law Blogger at 1:52 AM 0 comments
Labels: Blog
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
J.Y. Interpretation 678
On 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。
Posted by The Taiwan Law Blogger at 11:44 PM 0 comments
Labels: J.Y. Interpretations, Judicial Yuan, Taiwan Law
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。
Posted by The Taiwan Law Blogger at 5:18 AM 0 comments
Labels: J.Y. Interpretations, Judicial Yuan
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。
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。
Posted by The Taiwan Law Blogger at 6:16 PM 0 comments
Labels: J.Y. Interpretations, Judicial Yuan
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.
Posted by The Taiwan Law Blogger at 6:42 PM 0 comments
Labels: Criminal Code, J.Y. Interpretations, Judicial Yuan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
