Connect
Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School - Green Background

Country Details

Taiwan

  • J.Y. Interpretation No.559, Taiwan, , 2003.
    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, so the Act must be amended to fulfill the Constitutional requirement of specific and explicit authorization by law.
  • J.Y. Interpretation No.554, Taiwan, , 2002.
    The legislature may enact a law restricting freedom of sexual behavior within the system of marriage (such as by making adultery punishable under criminal law), but only if the restrictions are not overly severe in violation of the principle of proportionality embodies in Article 23 of the Constitution.  In particular, the offense must be indictable only upon complaint, and no complaint may be instituted if the spouse has connived against or forgiven the offending party for the offense.
  • J.Y. Interpretation No.410, Taiwan, Supreme Court, 1996.
    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.
  • J.Y. Interpretation No.372, Taiwan, Supreme Court, 1995.
    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 by most spouses.  Even with regards to cases where a "party temporarily loses control and overreacts to the spouse's misconduct," the precedent does not exclude applying the above factors to determine whether such overreactions threaten the continuity of the marriage.
  • J.Y. Interpretation No.365, Taiwan, , 1994.
    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.