萬國法律事務所

On 27 March 2026, the Taiwan Constitutional Court (“Constitutional Court”) issued a constitutional decision holding that an absolute prohibition on retransfer of juvenile cases was unconstitutional because the prohibition—at least in cases where another court could better protect the juvenile's interests—failed to adequately protect the personal rights of juveniles and to meet the State's special obligation to safeguard the physical and mental well-being of children and adolescents. Article 22 of the Constitution protects the rights of juveniles, and Article 156 imposes the special duty of the State to safeguard the physical and mental well-being of minors. The specific rule found unconstitutional in the Juvenile Justice Act is set out in Article 15: a juvenile court that receives a transferred case may not transfer the case to another court.

This case arose from a constitutional petition filed by a Hualien District Court judge who was presiding over proceedings in two separate juvenile cases that had been transferred to the Hualien District Court from the Taoyuan and Pingtung District Courts because the juvenile respondents in those cases were registered as Hualien County residents. In fact, they resided in New Taipei City, which is several hours away from Hualien County. The rule struck down by the Constitutional Court precluded the judge from transferring their cases again to the New Taipei District Court even though that court would have been considerably more accessible for the juvenile respondents. The Constitutional Court also observed that the well-being of the juveniles could be impaired by having to appear in a distant court.

The Constitutional Court recognized that the prohibition on transferring a juvenile case more than once serves a legitimate purpose: preventing repeated transfers of juvenile cases that unduly prolong juvenile proceedings and undermine procedural efficiency. It reasoned that the problem with an absolute prohibition on retransferring a juvenile case is that a juvenile's circumstances, including place of residence, schooling, employment, and family situation, may change over time. Consequently, the court which initially received a transfer may no longer be the most appropriate forum. An absolute prohibition on retransfer with no exceptions fails to account for such changes and thus in some cases fails to protect the best interests of the juvenile in violation of Articles 22 and 156 of the Constitution, which guarantee juveniles' personal rights and require the State to provide special protection for their physical and mental well-being and healthy personal development. The Constitutional Court concluded by holding that the absolute prohibition on retransfer of juvenile cases was disproportionate to the legislative aim in some cases.

As an interim remedy until Taiwan’s Legislature amends Article 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Constitutional Court ordered that juveniles be allowed to appeal orders granting retransfer and that courts hearing their cases be permitted to order case transfers more than once where necessary to protect the juveniles’ best interests. The Constitutional Court also set a two-year deadline for the Legislature to act. The case citation is TCC Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-3 (2026) and may also be referred to as the ‘Case on the Prohibition of Retransfer in Juvenile Proceedings’.