x

        Petitioner X filed for a constitutional review judgment and preliminary injunction regarding matters such as changing the exercise and assumption of parental rights and duties over the minor child and other matters (The Supreme Court Final Civil Ruling 111-Tai-Jian-Kang-13 [2022]).

        1.The Supreme Court Final Civil Ruling 111-Tai-Jian-Kang-13 (2022), including the Taipei District Court Civil Ruling 108-Chia-Chan-46 (2019), shall be temporarily suspended until the judgment of the case filed by X for constitutional review is pronounced.

        2.Other claims of  petitioner X are dismissed.

        1. As is required to prevent the fundamental rights protected under the Constitution and public interest from being irreparably and materially impaired, a preliminary injunction ruling, as a last resort, may be rendered by the Constitutional Court, on its own motion or the party's, in respect of the underlying disputes, the application of the impugned legal provision, or the execution of the impugned decision that underlies the petition, among other things, while the petition is pending before the Constitutional Court, which is expressly stated in Article 43, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act.

        2. Petitioner X and Italian Y had a daughter, Z, in 2014 (see the name code comparison table for her real name). Regarding exercising or assuming parental rights and duties over Z, both parties agreed that Y could bring Z to Italy from December 20, 2017, to January 10, 2018. However, Y brought Z to Italy in advance on December 12, 2017. On December 12, 2017, X petitioned the Taipei District Court in Taiwan to change the exercise and assumption of parental rights and duties over Z (107- Chia Chin-Sheng-212 [2018]).  On January 3, 2018, X also applied to the Taipei District Court for a preliminary injunction to prohibit Y from taking Z out of the country and to hand Z to X. Y later failed to bring Z back to Taiwan on January 10, 2018, as agreed. X then visited Z in Italy in January 2019 and brought Z back to Taiwan on January 20, 2019. Y also applied to the court for a preliminary injunction in 2019. The same court approved Y’s application and ordered X to hand minor child Z to Y (ruling 108-Chia-Chan-46 in family matters [2019]), and Y may take Z out of the country to live with him in Italy before the first-instance ruling of that court concerning change of parental rights (107-Chia-Chin-Sheng-212 [2018]). X filed an appeal and re-appeal under the law, and the aforementioned Supreme Court's final ruling dismissed the re-appeal. Based on this, Y applied to the Taichung District Court for the compulsory execution of the preliminary injunction (109-Ssu-Chih-11967 [2020]). In this case, X has already applied for a constitutional review of the aforementioned final ruling and applied for a preliminary injunction under Article 43, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act.

        3. X's claim, in this case, is briefly summarized: This time, the child will  suffer irreparable harm to the right to receive national education, the right to survive in Taiwan, the human dignity of the mother and daughter, and the safety of the mother and child, not knowing where is the child's home? Not seeing where is the mother? Taiwan is not a member of the Hague Convention, so it unilaterally protects foreign biological fathers and ignores the rights of native mothers and daughters. This case is extremely urgent.

        4. In a cross-border parents case, how to appropriately determine the exercise or assumption of parents' rights and duties for minor children is particularly relevant to the constitutional rights of minor children's ability to develop soundly physically and mentally. When deciding on the preliminary injunction for the exercise or assumption of parents' rights and duties for minor children, if the decision is inappropriate, it is indeed enough to cause irreparable material damage to the constitutional rights of minor children's sound physical and mental development. The above-mentioned final ruling upholds the first-instance ruling that X should hand minor child Z to Y. However, the compulsory execution of this preliminary injunction will have a massive impact on the constitutional rights of the minor child. Whether the above-mentioned final ruling violates the Constitution is still subject to constitutional review by this Court. Moreover, the above-mentioned final ruling has entered the execution process, and this case is indeed urgent and necessary, and there is no other means to avoid future damage. This Court believes granting a preliminary injunction in this case is necessary. Therefore, the above-mentioned final ruling (including Taipei District Court ruling 108-Chia-Chan-46 [2019]) should be temporarily suspended until the judgment of the case filed by X for constitutional review (111-Hsien-Ming-192 [2022]) is pronounced.

        5. As for X's claim that the children should be under the joint custody of X and Y in Taiwan, there is no urgent necessity, it is inconsistent with the requirements stipulated in Article 43, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act and should be dismissed.

        6.The ruling on preliminary injunction in this case shall cease to have effect under the circumstances specified in Article 43, Paragraph 4 of the Constitutional Court Procedural Act.