Skip to main content

Asia

ID
1002
Level
Global Region

司法院大法官會議第147號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No. 147)

Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides that spouses have a “mutual marital obligation to cohabit” absent legally justifiable reasons for not cohabiting. The Court held that a husband’s extramarital affair violates the “marital obligation of fidelity” and qualifies as a legally justifiable reason for the wife not to cohabit with the husband. Thus, the Court held that a husband’s extramarital affair releases his wife from her marital obligation to cohabit, but only for the period during which he maintains the affair.

司法院大法官會議第365號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No.365)

Article 1089 of the Civil Code, which stipulates that in situations of parental disagreement in exercising parental rights over a minor, the father has the right of final decision, is in violation of both Article 7 of the Constitution (stating that both sexes are equal under the law) and Article 9 of the Amendment (eliminating sexual discrimination).  Therefore, Article 1089 should be examined and amended.  The current Article is void within two years of this interpretation.

司法院大法官會議第372號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No.372)

A Supreme Court holding that "although a spouse who has suffered unbearable mistreatment in cohabitation is entitled to sue for divorce, this does not include cases where the other party temporarily loses control and overreacts to the spouse's misconduct" is not unconstitutional.  To determine what constitutes "unbearable mistreatment in cohabitation," the courts should take into account the degree of the mistreatment, education levels, social status, and so on, determining if the degree of mistreatment goes beyond the violation of personal dignity and security that would be tolerated

司法院大法官會議第410號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No.410)

A Supreme Court precedent from 1966 held that property obtained by a wife during the continuance of a marriage, but which cannot be proved separate property or contributed property, belongs to the husband.  The amendment of the Civil Code in 1985 under the authority of Article 7 of the Constitution emphasizes gender equity and invalidates this Supreme Court precedent.

最高法院1966年的一個判例認為,妻子在婚姻存續期間獲得的財產,如果不能證明該財產是與原有財產分離的或妻子對其有貢獻,則該財產屬於丈夫。依憲法第7條規定,1985年修正後的民法強調性別平等,並不再援用最高法院此一判例。

司法院大法官會議第559號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No.559)

In the case of protection orders involving monetary payment, the Domestic Violence Prevention Act explicitly authorizes the agency empowered to execute such orders and sets forth procedures and methods or doing so, in keeping with Constitutional requirements.  However, for protection orders not involving monetary payment, the Act provides only general authorization of police agencies without procedures and methods, s

司法院大法官會議第617號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No. 617)

Article 235 of the Criminal Code provides for criminal penalties for people who distribute, broadcast or sell “obscene” material, and to people who manufacture or possess obscene material “with the intent to distribute, broadcast or sell.” The Court held that the term “obscene” is not an indefinite “concept of law,” but rather includes material containing, among other things, violent or sexually abusive content. As such, the Court held that the law is a reasonable restraint on free speech and free publication.

司法院大法官會議第666號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No. 666)

Article 80, Section 1, Sub-section 1 of the Social Order Maintenance Act establishes administrative penalties of detention and a fine for any person who engages in sexual conduct or cohabitation with the intent of obtaining financial gain. The Court noted that a transaction for sexual conduct necessarily involves two people: the person engaging in the conduct with the intent of obtaining financial gain, and the other person who provides consideration for the conduct.

Subscribe to Asia