Note: 
This summary constitutes no part of the Ruling but is prepared by the Department of Clerks for the Constitutional Court only for the readers' reference.
In case of any conflict of meaning between the Traditional Chinese version and the translated English version, the Traditional Chinese version shall prevail.

Headnotes

    Considering the constitutional rights of a child involved in the case of an international custody dispute, the Constitutional Court ordered upon motion to suspend the enforcement of the Supreme Court's preliminary injunction order of handing over a child to one of the parents. 

    The Constitutional Court ordered to suspend the Supreme Court order until the main case, which is the petitioner's constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court's preliminary injunction order, was decided.

Background Note (rearranged from the Reasoning of this ruling for better understanding)

    This preliminary injunction concerns a constitutional complaint against a preliminary injunction civil order decided by the Supreme Court, which involved a case of international child custody dispute. 

    The petitioner X (Taiwanese) and the party of interest in this case, Y (Italian), had a non-marital child (hereinafter, "Z") in Taiwan in 2014. The couple decided to exercise joint custody regarding Z's upbringing. However, in 2017, Y brought Z to Italy at a time not agreed upon by X. Y was still expected to return with Z in January 2018. In 2018, X motioned to the Taipei District Court for the change into sole custody, a preliminary injunction to prohibit Y from bringing Z abroad, as well as a preliminary injunction for Y to hand over Z. In the meantime, Y did not bring Z back to X as promised. X visited Z and brought the child back from Italy in 2019. In the same year, Y was granted by the Taipei District Court a preliminary injunction for X to hand over Z and for Y to return to Italy with Z before the 2018 custodial case was decided (Taipei District Court Civil Order 108-Chia-Chan-46 (2019), hereinafter "Taipei District Court Civil Order"). X filed an interlocutory appeal and re-appeal but was found unmeritorious and dismissed finally by the Supreme Court Civil Order 111-Tai-Chien-Kang-13 (2022) (hereinafter "the Supreme Court Civil Order"). Y thus motioned with the Taichung District Court the enforcement of the preliminary injunction for X to hand over Z. 

    Petitioner X lodged a constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court Civil Order (including the decision of the Taipei District Court Civil Order). X also motioned for a preliminary injunction from the Constitutional Court to halt the enforcement of the Supreme Court Civil Order, arguing that once enforced, the child’s rights to education and to live in Taiwan, the dignity of the mother and the daughter, and the protection of women and children would being irreparably impaired.

Summary of the Ruling

Holding

    It is ordered that the enforcement of the Supreme Court Civil Order (including the pertaining Taipei District Court Civil Order) be suspended until this Court announces its decision on the petitioner's constitutional complaint.

Reasoning

1. Article 43, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (CCPA) expressly stipulates: "As is required to prevent the basic rights protected under the Constitution and public interest from being irreparably and materially impaired, a preliminary injunction ruling, as the 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 enforcement of the impugned decision that underlies the petition, inter alia, while the petition is pending before the Constitutional Court."
2. In the case of international child custody, appropriate decisions on the exercise of rights and obligations towards children are of particular relevance to the constitutional right of the children's well-being and optimal development. If decided poorly, it is sufficient to cause said constitutional right to be irreparably and substantively impaired. The Supreme Court Civil Order upheld the Taipei District Court's civil order, which is a preliminary injunction for X to hand over Z (a child) to Y. However, the enforcement of such an injunction has a substantial impact on the constitutional rights of the child. Since the constitutionality of the Supreme Court Civil Order is still pending review by this Court, and considering that this case indeed presents an urgency and necessity because the disputed order has gone into compulsory enforcement procedure, this Court has no alternatives but to order a preliminary injunction on this case. The enforcement of the Supreme Court Civil Order (including the Taipei District Court Civil Order) shall be suspended until this Court announces its decision on the petitioner's constitutional complaint.
3. As for the part where the petitioner motioned to share the child's joint custody with Y in Taiwan, it doesn't present an urgent necessity that meets the requirement of a preliminary injunction by this Court under Article 43, Paragraph 1 of CCPA. The petitioner's motion shall be denied. 
4. This preliminary injunction ruling shall cease to be effective under conditions listed in Article 43, Paragraph 4 of the CCPA.