Go to Content Area :::

Decisions

Home > Decisions > Docket Search > Before 2022
:::
:::
  • Interpretation
  • No.209
  • Date
  • 1986/09/12
  • Issue
    • Where a party in a civil action institutes a proceeding of retrial or files a motion for retrial on the ground that the court has erred in the application of a law or regulation in its irrevocable final adjudication or the opinion expressed by the court on the said law or regulation in its irrevocable final judgment had been interpreted by this Yuan as contrary to the intent of the said law or regulation, is the institution of such proceeding or the filing of such motion subject to the statutory peremptory period of limitation? And shall Interpretation No. 188 be appended?
  • Holding
    •        Where the application of a law or regulation in an irrevocable final adjudication or the opinion given in a court order is held by our interpretation to be inconsistent with the intention of a law or regulation, with the result that a proceeding of retrial is instituted or a motion for retrial is filed by the party pursuant to civil procedural law by invoking such interpretation as an authority, the statutory peremptory period for instituting a proceeding of retrial or filing a motion for retrial shall, by making reference to the proviso to the second paragraph of Article 500 of the Code of Civil Procedure, commence from the date such interpretation is issued. In the event that a civil adjudication has become irrevocable for exceeding five years or more, however, no proceeding of or motion for retrial may be instituted under Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Article on the ground that the court has erred in application of a law or regulation. This is to supplement our previous Interpretation No. 188.
  • Reasoning
    •        Article 78 of the Constitution provides that the Judiciary shall have the power to interpret the Constitution and to unify the interpretation of laws and orders. By this provision, the Judiciary branch of the government is vested with the power and authority to resolve any doubts and controversies as may arise out of, or in connection with, the Constitution and to explicate the true meaning of any statute and order. Where a unified interpretation has been given by this Yuan upon application by reason of a difference in opinions between central or local agencies on the application of any statute or order in connection with their duties and functions, but the view expressed in respect of the application of a law or order in an irrevocable final adjudication of the case giving rise to such difference in opinions is held by our interpretation to be inconsistent with the intention of the law or order, the interpretation may of course be invoked to support retrial or an extraordinary appeal. If it is held by an interpretation of this Court, however, that it was a matter of judicial opinion of the court on the literal meaning of the text of a statute and that there was no obvious error in the application of law or order, the interpretation may not be invoked as a ground for retrial. This has been clearly expounded in our Interpretation No. 188 and in the last paragraph of our Interpretation No. 208.
      
    •        Where the application of law in an irrevocable final adjudication or the opinion given in a court order is held by our interpretation to be inconsistent with the intention of a law or regulation, with the result that a proceeding of retrial is instituted or a motion for retrial is filed by the party under the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 496, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, the statutory peremptory period for instituting such proceeding of retrial or for filing a motion for retrial shall, by making reference to the proviso to the second paragraph of Article 500 of the of Code of Civil Procedure, commence from the date such interpretation is issued, so that the right of the people may be adequately protected. An error in the application of law or regulation in the irrevocable final adjudication, however, is a defect in the original adjudication. Therefore, in the event that such a civil adjudication has become irrevocable for exceeding five years or more, no action of, or motion for, retrial may be instituted under Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Article on the ground that the court has erred in the application of law or regulation. This is to supplement our Interpretation No. 188. 
      
    • *Translated by Raymond T. Chu.
Back Top