|
Date
|
Case Name
|
Petitioner(s)
|
Case No.
|
Issue (Summarized)
|
Deadline for
Amicus Curiae Applications and Expert Opinions
|
|
November 27, 2023 (Morning)
|
Case on the Extended Confiscation of Criminal Proceeds
|
I-Hui CHI
|
111-Hsien-Min-4096
|
In a narcotics case, whether the applied Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 19, Paragraph 3 of the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act are unconstitutional.
|
Amicus Curiae applications should be turned in by October 19, 2023. Once permitted, Amici Curiae shall turn in their expert opinions by November 19, 2023.
|
|
December 19, 2023 (Morning)
|
Case on Life Sentence Prisoners Serving Remaining Sentence after Revocation of Parole
|
Chao-Ho Hsieh
|
109-Hsien-Erh-333
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
Amicus Curiae applications should be turned in by October 31, 2023. Once permitted, Amici Curiae shall turn in their expert opinions by November 30, 2023.
|
|
【1】
I-Ching CHEN (consolidated)
|
109-Hsien-Erh-397
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version), Article 7-1, Paragraph 2 and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
|
【2】
Supreme Court Criminal Panel No.3 (consolidated)
|
109-Hsien-San-26
|
The petition was filed by the Supreme Court Criminal Panel No.3, who was convinced that Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional when hearing the Supreme Court Case 109-Tai-Kang-778.
|
|
【3】
Ching-Ho LAI (consolidated)
|
109-Hsien-Erh-414
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【4】
Hsin-Sheng FU (consolidated)
|
109-Hsien-Erh-326
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version), Article 7-1, Paragraph 2 and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
|
【5】
Ming-Hui LI (consolidated)
|
109-Hsien-Erh-336
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) and Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
|
【6】
Yu-Hua LI (consolidated)
|
109-Hsien-Erh-426
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version), Article 7-1, Paragraph 2 and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
|
【7】
Kuo-Ching YANG (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-18
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (1997 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【8】
Cheng-Yung YANG (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-38
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【9】
Teng-Sheng WANG (consolidated)
|
108-Hsien-Erh-179
|
When motioning for an objection against serving the remaining sentence after revocation of parole, the petitioner argues whether the applied Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
|
【10】
Chen-Hui HSIEH (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-82
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【11】
Ching-Pao CHEN (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-173
|
- Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
- The petitioner of this case also motioned for a preliminary injunction.
|
|
【12】
Yung-Chuan LIEN (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-81
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【13】
Tsai-Pao HO (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-185
|
- In a kidnapping and extortion case, the petitioner argues that Supreme Court Judgment 77-Tai-Shang-4688 (1988) is unconstitutional.
- Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional. (The petitioner misquoted the article as “Article 79”.)
|
|
【14】
Chun-Yu KUO (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-234
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【15】
Chien-Yang TSAI (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-282
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【16】
Tse-Yuan CHEN (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-297
|
Whether Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【17】
Chi-Fang YANG (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-179
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【18】
Wen-Cheng PENG (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-307
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【19】
Kuo-Chen WU (consolidated)
|
109-Hsien-Erh-503
|
- Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version), Articles 7-1 and 7-2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
- Petition to supplement the decision of J.Y. Interpretation No.796.
|
|
【20】
Ming-Hsiung YU (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-50
|
When motioning for an objection against serving the remaining sentence after revocation of parole, the petitioner argues whether the pertaining provisions of Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
|
【21】
Ming-Tung KU (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-903466
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
|
【22】
Chang-Feng TAN (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-1496
|
- In a narcotics case, the petitioner argues that the ruling of Supreme Court Criminal Order 111-Tai-Kang-120 is unconstitutional.
- Whether the applied Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
|
【23】
Sung-Ming LI (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-903844
|
In a case concerning serving the remaining sentence after revocation of parole, whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (1997 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【24】
Chin-Sheng LIN (consolidated)
|
112-Hsien-Min-900162
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【25】
San-Neng LI (consolidated)
|
112-Hsien-Min-159
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【26】
Yao-Ching YANG (consolidated)
|
112-Hsien-Min-325
|
In a case concerning serving the remaining sentence after revocation of parole, whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【27】
Ming-Hui LI (consolidated)
|
112-Hsien-Min-900462
|
Whether the Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
|
【28】
Tung-Peng CHEN (consolidated)
|
112-Hsien-Min-900496
|
Whether the applied Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (1997 version) and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
|
【29】
Ming-Hui LI (consolidated)
|
112-Hsien-Min-526
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【30】
Kuo-Kuang LI (consolidated)
|
112-Hsien-Min-885
|
The petitioner, when motioning for objection against serving the remaining sentence of a robbery case after revocation of parole:
- Argues that the ruling of Supreme Court Criminal Order 112-Tai-Kang-219 is unconstitutional.
- Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (2005 version) is unconstitutional.
|
|
【31】
Ming-Chih CHANG (consolidated)
|
112-Hsien-Min-900937
|
- In a murder case, the petitioner argues that the ruling of Supreme Court Criminal Order 112-Tai-Kang-65 is unconstitutional.
- Whether the applied Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (1997 version) and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
|
【32】
Pao-Ping LIU (consolidated)
|
112-Hsien-Min-900946
|
Whether Article 79-1, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code (1997 version) and Article 7-2, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
|
|
December 25, 2023 (Morning)
|
Case on the Criminalization of Public Insult
|
Yu-Te CHU
(The civil part of this case has been rendered into Taiwan Constitutional Court Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-2.)
|
111-Hsien-Min-900243 (The original case number for the civil part of this case is Hui-Tai-12668.)
|
In a public insult case, whether the applied Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional.
|
Amicus Curiae applications should be turned in by October 20, 2023. Once permitted, Amici Curiae shall turn in their expert opinions by December 11, 2023.
|
|
【1】
Judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5 (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Shen-900007
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the defendants’ freedom of speech, the principle of proportionality, the equality principle, and void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions) when hearing the Taiwan Changhua District Court Cases 105-Yi-1167, 105-Chien-1793, and 106-Chien-1139.
|
|
【2】
Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1 (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-San-20
|
The petition was filed by Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1, who was convinced that Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (public insult), unconstitutionally violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), the principle of proportionality, and freedom of speech when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 110-Chien-Shang-3.
|
|
【3】
Judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.5
(consolidated)
|
107-Hsien-San-17
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.5, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), the principle of proportionality, and freedom of speech when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 107-Chien-120.
|
|
【4】
Kuang-Yuan FENG (consolidated)
|
Hui-Tai-13516
|
In a public insult case, whether the applied Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code violates the freedom of speech protected by Article 11 of the Constitution, and deviates from Articles 18.1, 19.1, and 19.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
|
|
【5】
Judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5 (consolidated)
|
109-Hsien-San-10
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5, who was convinced that Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the defendant’s freedom of speech, the principle of proportionality, the equality principle, and the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions) when hearing the Taiwan Changhua District Court case 107-Yi-1081.
|
|
【6】
Judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1
(consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-San-19
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1, who was convinced that Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), and right to equality when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 110-Hua-Chien-79.
|
|
【7】
Taiwan High Court Criminal Division No.2 (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-San-24
|
- The petition was filed by the Taiwan High Court Criminal Division No.2, who was convinced that Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code unconstitutionally violates the principle of proportionality and freedom of speech when hearing the Taiwan High Court Cases 108-Shang-Yi-770 and 109-Shang-Yi-552.
- Whether J.Y. Interpretation No.509 should be supplemented or altered.
|
|
【8】
Chia-Hung HSIAO (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-186
|
In a public insult case, whether the applied Article 309, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code violates the freedom of speech and the principle of proportionality.
|
|
【9】
Judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1
(consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-San-17
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), right to equality, and freedom of speech when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 110-Hua-Chien-99.
|
|
【10】
Ai-Yu WANG (consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-Erh-34
|
In a public insult case, whether the applied Article 309 of the Criminal Code violates Articles 11 and 23 of the Constitution, and contradicts the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions) under J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 545 and 636.
|
|
【11】
Judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.5
(consolidated)
|
107-Hsien-San-16
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.5, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), freedom of speech, and the principle of proportionality when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 107-Hua-Chien-87.
|
|
【12】
Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.3
(consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-San-15
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.3, who was convinced that Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), the principle of proportionality, and freedom of speech when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 109-Yuan-Su-103.
|
|
【13】
Judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.3
(consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Shen-1
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.3, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult), violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), right to equality, and freedom of speech when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 110-Hua-Chien-271.
|
|
【14】
Judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1
(consolidated)
|
109-Hsien-San-36
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.3, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), right to equality, and freedom of speech when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 109-Yi-223.
|
|
【15】
Judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1
(consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-San-9
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult), violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), right to equality, and freedom of speech when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 110-Yuan-Yi-23.
|
|
【16】
Judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1
(consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-San-16
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), right to equality, and freedom of speech when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 110-Yuan-Yi-76.
|
|
【17】
Judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1
(consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-San-18
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.1, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), right to equality, and freedom of speech when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 110-Hua-Chien-152.
|
|
【18】
Ta-Chun CHANG (consolidated)
|
Hui-Tai-12970
|
In a public insult case, whether the applied Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional.
|
|
【19】
Judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.1
(consolidated)
|
110-Hsien-San-11
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.1, who was convinced that Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the defendants’ freedom of speech, the principle of proportionality, the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), and the equality principle when hearing the Taiwan Changhua District Court Cases 109-Chien-2018 and 110-Yi-140.
|
|
【20】
Judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.3
(consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Shen-6
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.3, who was convinced that Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (public insult), violates void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), right to equality, right to liberty and security of person (personal freedom), freedom of speech, right to property, and principle of proportionality when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 110-Hua-Chien-248.
|
|
【21】
Kun-Ting HUANG (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-900423
|
In a public insult case, whether the applied Article 309 of the Criminal Code violates the freedom of right, the principle of proportionality, and the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions).
|
|
【22】
Judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.3
(consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Shen-13
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.3, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), right to equality, and freedom of speech when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 109-Yi-297.
|
|
【23】
Judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.3
(consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Shen-17
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Criminal Division No.3, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), right to equality, right to liberty and security of person (personal freedom), freedom of speech, right to property, and principle of proportionality when hearing the Taiwan Hualien District Court Case 111-Hua-Chien-194.
|
|
【24】
Hsiu-Hui HSIEH (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-903805
|
Whether Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code violates Articles 7, 8, 11, 15, and 22 of the Constitution.
|
|
【25】
Hsiao-Ping LI (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-3733
|
Whether Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code violates Articles 7, 8, 11, and 22 of the Constitution.
|
|
【26】
Chu-Hsing CHIANG (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-903908
|
In a public insult case, whether the applied Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code violates freedom of speech, the principle of proportionality, and the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions).
|
|
【27】
Judge from Taiwan Pingtung District Court Criminal Division No.5
(consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Shen-21
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Pingtung District Court Criminal Division No.5, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult) unconstitutionally violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), principle of equality, right to liberty and security of person (personal freedom), freedom of speech, right to property, and the principle of proportionality when hearing the Taiwan Pingtung District Court Case 111-Yi-575.
|
|
【28】
Shui-Tou TSAI (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-4145
|
- In a public insult case, the petitioner argues that Taoyuan District Court Criminal Judgment 110-Chien-Shang-505 is unconstitutional.
- Whether the applied Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional.
|
|
【29】
Judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.3
(consolidated)
|
112-Hsien-Shen-1
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.3, who was convinced that Article 309 of the Criminal Code (public insult) is unconstitutional when hearing the Taiwan Changhua District Court Case 111-Yi-477.
|
|
【30】
Ke-Chin WU (consolidated)
|
112-Hsien-Min-535
|
- In a public insult case, whether the Taiwan High Court Criminal Judgment 111-Shang-Yi-1671 is unconstitutional.
- Whether the applied Article 309 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional.
|
|
December 26, 2023 (Morning)
|
Case on the Criminalization of Insulting a Public Official
|
Judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5
(consolidated)
|
Hui-Tai-13556
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5, who was convinced that Article 140, Paragraph 1, First Sentence of the Criminal Code (insulting a public official) unconstitutionally violates the defendants’ freedom of speech, the principle of proportionality, void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), and the principle of equality when hearing the Taiwan Changhua District Court Cases 105-Yi-1167, 105-Chien-1793, and 106-Chien-1139.
|
Amicus Curiae applications should be turned in by October 20, 2023. Once permitted, Amici Curiae shall turn in their expert opinions by December 11, 2023.
|
|
【1】
Judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5
(consolidated)
|
108-Hsien-San-49
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5, who was convinced that Article 140, Paragraph 1, First Sentence of the Criminal Code (insulting a public official) unconstitutionally violates the defendants’ freedom of speech, the principle of proportionality, void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), and the principle of equality when hearing the Taiwan Changhua District Court Case 108-Chien-1695.
|
|
【2】
Judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5
(consolidated)
|
108-Hsien-San-8
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5, who was convinced that Article 140, Paragraph 1, First Sentence of the Criminal Code (insulting a public official) unconstitutionally violates the principle of proportionality, void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), and the principle of equality when hearing the Taiwan Changhua District Court Cases 107-Chien-802 and 107-Chien-1001.
|
|
【3】
Judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5
(consolidated)
|
109-Hsien-San-14
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5, who was convinced that Article 140, Paragraph 1, First Sentence of the Criminal Code (insulting a public official) unconstitutionally violates the defendants’ freedom of speech, the principle of proportionality, void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), and the principle of equality when hearing the Taiwan Changhua District Court Case 108-Chien-2134.
|
|
【4】
Judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5
(consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Shen-900010
|
The petition was filed by a judge from Taiwan Changhua District Court Criminal Division No.5, who was convinced that Article 140, Paragraph 1, First Sentence of the Criminal Code (insulting a public official) unconstitutionally violates the principle of proportionality, void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), and the principle of equality when hearing the Taiwan Changhua District Court Cases 109-Chien-2018, 109-Chien-2124, and 110-Chien-420.
|
|
【5】
Fu-Ming TSAI
(consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-1291
|
Whether Article 140 of the Criminal Code (insulting a public official) violates the freedom of speech, principle of proportionality, void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), the principle of punishment fitting to the crime, and the principle of equality.
|
|
【6】
Yi-Tse CHEN (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-1505
|
Whether Article 140, Paragraph 1, First Sentence of the Criminal Code (insulting a public official) violates the freedom of speech, principle of proportionality, the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), the principle of punishment fitting to the crime, and the principle of equality.
|
|
【7】
Hui-Ju YANG (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-3542
|
Whether Article 140 of the Criminal Code violates the principle of equality, freedom of speech, the principle of proportionality, the void-for-vagueness doctrine (principle of clarity and precision of legal provisions), and the principle of punishment fitting to the crime.
|
|
【8】
Hsiu-Hui HSIEH (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-3646
|
Whether Article 140, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code violates Articles 7, 8, 11, 15, and 22 of the Constitution.
|
|
January 16, 2024 (Morning)
|
Case on the Constitutionality of Height Requirements for General Police Officers Entrance Exam
|
Yun-Hsuan CHEN (consolidated)
|
111-Hsien-Min-3005
|
In a case concerning the height requirements for the police entrance exam, whether the applied Article 7, Paragraph 2 and Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Service Special Examination Regulation for General Police Officers violate the right of holding public offices guaranteed by Article 18 of the Constitution.
|
Amicus Curiae applications should be turned in by October 31, 2023. Once permitted, Amici Curiae shall turn in their expert opinions by January 2, 2024.
|
|
March 12, 2024 (Morning)
|
Case on Including Previous Job Tenure in Salary Assessment for Elementary/Junior High School Substitute Teachers
|
Kai-Hsiang CHANG (consolidated)
|
108-Hsien-Erh-214
|
In a case concerning salary assessment of substitute teacher, whether the applied Article 35, Paragraph 2 of the Teachers’ Act (2000 version) and Ministry of Education Letter Tai(87)-Jen(Yi)-87129048 of November 30, 1998 are in violation of Articles 15 and 23 of the Constitution and the J.Y. Interpretation No. 707.
|
Amicus Curiae applications should be turned in by October 31, 2023. Once permitted, Amici Curiae shall turn in their expert opinions by January 12, 2024.
|