Case News
The TCC delivers its Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-3 (2026)
The Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) delivered its judgment on the “Case on the Prohibition of Re-Transferring a Juvenile Protection Case” (TCC Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-3) on March 27, 2026.
Facts, Issues, and Procedure of the Case
Under the First Clause of Article 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile court, after examining a pending case and finding that the exercise of its jurisdiction by another competent juvenile court may better protect the juvenile in question, may transfer the case to such a court by ruling. The transferred case, following the Second Clause of the same article (hereinafter the “impugned provision”), may not be further transferred. Question arises as to whether such prohibition on re-transferring without exception, violates the Constitution.
Petitioner of this case is a judge from Taiwan Hualien District Court Juvenile Division (Te-Unit). The petitioner lodged two petitions for two pending juvenile protection cases (special procedure for at-risk juveniles and juvenile delinquents of lesser seriousness). The cases involved two juveniles who resided respectively in Taoyuan and New Taipei City but were transferred to Hualien District Court, one of the courts of jurisdiction for their cases, based on their household registration addresses. Upon hearing the cases, the petitioner found that neither of the juveniles nor their legal representatives or legal guardians actually resided in Hualien County. During their court sessions, the juveniles and their legal representatives/ guardians requested that the court transfer their cases back to the courts in their respective residences. However, the impugned provision prohibited the petitioner from doing so. The petitioner believed the impugned provision was unconstitutional for violating the special obligation to protect juveniles under Article 156 of the Constitution, as well as the right to institute legal proceedings under Article 16. The petitioner suspended the cases and lodged for constitutional review in March and July 2025.
Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-3 (2026) was announced on March 27, 2026 by the Court consisting of five Justices (excluding the three justices who refused to participate). Justice Po-Hsiang YU authored this Judgment. Justice Tsai-Chen TSAI filed a concurring opinion.
Decision of the Court
The TCC declared that, within the scope that the transferred court cannot provide better protection to the juvenile involved and is prohibited with no exception to further transfer the case, the impugned provision is unconstitutional. The impugned provision shall cease to be effective from the date of this Judgment. Competent authority shall amend the provision following this Judgment within a two-year grace period, during which courts may re-transfer juvenile justice cases and parties may lodge interlocutory appeals against transfers.
In its reasoning, the TCC emphasized that, as the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act is to protect the well-being of juveniles (aged twelve or over but under eighteen) and foster their healthy personal development, the content, interpretation and application of the Act should prioritize their best interests. When multiple juvenile courts have jurisdiction over a juvenile protection case, the court that can best protect the juvenile shall prevail. If a juvenile court were to transfer a case, it must consider the report submitted by the juvenile investigation officer and conduct relevant investigations to confirm that transferring the case would be in the juvenile’s best interests. As transferring the case also affects the juvenile's hardship to attend court and opportunity to receive appropriate corrective measures, their opinion on where the case should be transferred should be sought.
The TCC noted that the purpose of prohibiting the re-transfer of juvenile protection cases is to prevent buck-passing and to avoid procedural delays caused by repeated transfers. The impugned provision is constitutional within the scope that the court to which the case was transferred can provide better protection.
However, since various practical factors may render the transferred court unsuitable for the case and the transfer order cannot be appealed, the impugned provision prohibiting re-transfers would violate the constitutional requirement to protect the juvenile’s best interest. In this regard, the impugned provision violates the juvenile’s personality right under Articles 22 and 156 of the Constitution, as well as the principle of proportionality under Article 23.
Additionally, the TCC urged the relevant authorities to review and amend procedural rules that do not permit interlocutory appeals or other procedural remedies for transferred juveniles. These rules could be perceived as infringing upon the juveniles' right to institute legal proceedings.
Notes:
- The full texts of the TCC Judgment as well as the concurring and dissenting opinions of individual Justices are available on the TCC website in Traditional Chinese. An English summary of this Judgment will be available later on the TCC English website.
- The TCC’s Case News is prepared by the Department of Clerks for the Constitutional Court (Judicial Yuan) for information only and does not constitute as a part of the decision.
- In case of any conflict of meaning between the Traditional Chinese version and the translated English version, the Traditional Chinese version shall prevail.