Note: 

• This summary constitutes no part of the Judgment but is prepared by the Department of Clerks for the Constitutional Court only for the readers’ reference.
• Original paragraph numbers that the summarized texts correspond to are put into lenticular brackets after each paragraph. 
• In case of any conflict of meaning between the Traditional Chinese version and the translated English version, the Traditional Chinese version shall prevail.

Headnotes

    To the extent that the receiving court of a transferred juvenile protection case is unable to provide more adequate protection to the juvenile concerned and is categorically prohibited from further transferring the case without exception, the Second Clause of Article 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act (hereinafter the “disputed provision”) violates the protection of juveniles’ personality rights under Articles 22 and 156 of the Constitution. 

Background Note

    The First Clause of Article 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act permits a juvenile court to transfer a case to another competent court if doing so better serves the juveniles’ interest. However, pursuant to the disputed provision, the transferred case may not be further transferred (re-transfer). A question arose as to whether such prohibition on re-transferring without exception, violates the Constitution. 

    The petitioner of this case is a judge of the Hualien District Court Juvenile Division, who lodged two petitions for two pending juvenile protection cases—one involving special procedure for at-risk juveniles and the other concerning juvenile delinquents of lesser seriousness. Both petitions involved juveniles who resided elsewhere but had been transferred to the Hualien District Court, one of the courts of competent jurisdiction, based on their household registration addresses. Requests by the juveniles and their guardians to re-transfer the cases to courts in their actual places of residence were precluded by the disputed provision. The petitioner believed the disputed provision was inconsistent with the State's obligation to protect juveniles under Article 156 of the Constitution, as well as the right to institute legal proceedings under Article 16. The petitioner stayed the proceedings and filed petitions for constitutional review in March and July 2025.

    Following TCC Judgment 114-Hsien-Pan-1 (2025), this decision was rendered by a bench of five Justices, excluding the three Justices who had declined to participate in the deliberation. 

Summary of the Judgment 

Holding

    The disputed provision required that “the juvenile court to which the said case is thus transferred may not further transfer the case in question again.” To the extent that the transferred court cannot provide better protection to the juvenile involved and is prohibited categorically from further transferring the case, the said provision contradicts the spirit of Articles 22 and 156 of the Constitution, which, in order to safeguard juveniles’ personality rights, impose upon the State the obligation to provide special protection for their physical and mental wellbeing, as well as the healthy development of their personalities. The disputed provision shall cease to be effective immediately as of the announcement date of this Judgment. Relevant authorities shall amend the provision within two years in accordance with the spirit of this Judgment. Before the amendment is complete, a transferred court may, after investigation, further transfer a case should it believe another juvenile court with jurisdiction can offer better protection. Juveniles involved, their statutory agents, people currently entrusted with the protection of the juveniles, or the assistant ad litem may file interlocutory appeals against the juvenile courts’ re-transfer decisions. 

Reasoning

1. The purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act: 

    The Juvenile Justice Act is established to fulfill the State’s special obligation to protect juveniles (aged twelve or over but under eighteen per statutory definition). Its purpose is to “safeguard the sound self-development of the juveniles, to adjust their growth environment, and to rectify their character.” The Act serves as part of the juvenile protection system. Although the legislature holds discretion over the contents of the Act, it still has to adhere to the Constitution’s intention to protect the physical and mental wellbeing of juveniles, as well as the healthy development of their personalities. The measures taken by the Act must conform to the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution. Safeguarding the best interests of the juvenile is at the heart of the State’s constitutionally mandated special obligation to protect juveniles. This not only entails that the Act must focus on, in its enactment, protecting the juveniles’ best interests under the Constitution’s intent, but it must also be interpreted and applied with the juveniles’ best interests as its priority. 【11】

2. Article 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act must be interpreted and applied in accordance with the best interests of the juvenile:

    Article 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act stipulates that the jurisdiction over juvenile protection cases shall be exercised by the court where the acts in question are committed, the court for the domicile or residence of the juvenile concerned, or the court for the place where the juvenile is present. However, as mentioned above, the Juvenile Justice Act must prioritize safeguarding the best interests of the juvenile. Considering the factors affecting a juvenile's attendance at court proceedings, and to realize the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act, the legislature stipulated in the First Clause of Article 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act that “Where a juvenile court, after examining a case pending before it, finds that the exercise of its jurisdiction by another competent juvenile court may better protect the juvenile in question, it may transfer the said pending case to such a juvenile court by ruling.” The provision explicitly provides that, to safeguard the best interests of the juvenile if multiple courts have jurisdiction over a juvenile protection case, jurisdiction need not be determined solely based on the order in which the cases were filed. Instead, after considering all factors relevant to the appropriateness of juvenile protection (such as the actual residence of the juveniles and their legal representative or current guardian, factors affecting the convenience of court appearances such as location of school or employment, the circumstances surrounding the juveniles’ conduct, the implementation of correctional measures, the circumstances of the court to which the case is to be transferred), the case shall be handled by the juvenile court best able to provide the most appropriate protection for the juvenile.【14】

    A juvenile court, before ordering transfer of a case per First Clause of Article 15, must consider reports and suggestions submitted by the juvenile investigation officer, and conduct a thorough investigation as well as carefully consider all matters related to the appropriateness from the perspective of juvenile protection. The court may order a transfer only after confirming that the transferred court can provide the juvenile with more appropriate protection and that the transfer is in the best interests of the juvenile. For the juveniles involved, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court handling the case is critical to whether they will have to endure hardships of a long journey, whether the most appropriate protection can be provided, and whether future measures will effectively adjust the juveniles’ upbringing as well as reform their characters—all of which are vital interests. Therefore, the juvenile court’s investigation conducted under First Clause of Article 15 must include the statements provided by the juvenile involved with regard to which is the appropriate court to handle his or her case.【16, 18】

3. The disputed provision intends to prevent excessive re-transfers of cases. Within the scope that the transferred court can indeed provide better protection to the juveniles involved, the disputed provision is constitutional:

    The disputed provision is a measure designed to prevent excessive re-transfers and to ensure the realization of First Clause of Article 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act. In this respect, the legislative purpose of the disputed provision is appropriate. In instances where the transferred court can better protect the juvenile involved, ordering a further transfer would go against the best interests of the juvenile and the legislative purpose of the said clause. Therefore, it is reasonable to prohibit such transfers, as doing so helps attain the purpose of the First Clause of Article 15. Within this scope, the disputed provision can be regarded as a reasonable means of attaining the legislative purpose set forth in the said clause. The disputed provision constitutes a necessary measure to protect the physical and mental wellbeing of juveniles, as well as the healthy development of their personalities. The disputed provision does not contravene the constitutional intention of protecting juveniles’ personality rights.【21】 

4.    Where the transferred court cannot better protect the juveniles involved, the disputed provision is unconstitutional: 

    Although the First Clause of Article 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act stipulates that a juvenile court may only order a transfer after conducting an investigation, in practice, there may still be situations—for various reasons—where the transferred court is not the best suited to provide the juvenile with appropriate protection. For instance: the juvenile court may not have conducted a thorough investigation, or even if it did, the information may be incorrect or the court may have erred in its assessment. In such situations, the court to which the case was transferred is clearly not in the best interests of the juvenile. Furthermore, even if the transferred court may provide the best protection to the juvenile at the time of transfer, changes in different factors may result in the court no longer being the one best suited to provide the juvenile with appropriate protection. Because the juvenile involved is still growing up, his or her living circumstances often change depending on factors such as family environment, educational stage, and employment status. In the aforementioned situations where the handling of cases by the transferred court is not in the best interests of the juvenile, the disputed provision prohibits further transfers (re-transfers) altogether. As a result, the transferred court has no choice but to watch such a situation to continue, which is not in the best interests of the juvenile. This can no longer be said to be consistent with the Constitution’s intent.【23-25】

    Moreover, transfer ruling under the First Clause of Article 15 is not a ruling against which an interlocutory appeal may be filed under Article 61. There are also no other remedies for situations where the transferred court cannot better protect the juvenile involved. In this regard, to the extent that the transferred court handling the case is not in the best interests of the juvenile, it becomes even more evident that the disputed provision is not in the best interests of the transferred juvenile. The disputed provision violates Articles 22 and 156 of the Constitution, which, in order to safeguard the personal rights of juveniles, impose upon the State the obligation to provide special protection for their physical and mental wellbeing, as well as the healthy development of their personalities.【26】

    In summary, in cases where the transferred juvenile court cannot provide the juvenile with more appropriate protection, and given that the disputed provision categorically prohibits further transfer, the juvenile involved is left with no choice but to have the case heard by that court, with no means of escaping this predicament. To this extent, the disputed provision contradicts the legislative purpose of the First Clause of Article 15 of the Juveniles Justice Act. The disputed provision does not aid the attainment of its legislative purpose; it is clearly an inappropriate means and fails to comply with the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution, thereby violating the Constitution’s intent to protect the physical and mental wellbeing of juveniles and ensure the healthy development of their personalities. The disputed provision shall cease to be effective immediately as of the announcement date of this Judgment. Relevant authorities shall amend the provision within two years in accordance with the spirit of this Judgment. Before the amendment is complete, a transferred court may, after investigation, further transfer a case should it believe another juvenile court with jurisdiction can better protect the juvenile involved. Juveniles involved, their statutory agents, people currently entrusted with the protection of the juveniles, or the assistant ad litem may file interlocutory appeals against the juvenile courts’ re-transfer decisions.【28】

    There are concerns that the current framework, in which the transferred juveniles lack the right to interlocutory appeal or other legal remedies, may violate the right to institute legal proceedings enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution, and may not be in the best interests of the juvenile. When the relevant authorities amend the disputed provision, in addition to allowing the transferred court to order further transfer in the juvenile’s interest after investigating, it would be appropriate to review and amend the current framework as well.【29】