Taiwan – Judicial remedy

V. Access to remedy

B. Actions taken

  • Judicial remedy

Civil remedy and litigation aid (page 17)

The “Code of Civil Procedure” and the “Labor Incident Act” both provide for a “litigation aid” system. Under this system, except in cases where there is manifestly no prospect for a party to prevail in the action, or where a party lacks the financial means to pay the litigation expenses, the court may grant the litigant temporary relief from any requirement to pay court costs. Taiwan’s “Legal Aid Act” provides that when a party lacks the financial means to pay litigation expenses and attorney fees, the court shall provide aid through an institutional channel to safeguard the basic human right of the people to engage in litigation and benefit from the right of equality.

This information is also covered under Appendix 4: Overview of the implementation of the state duty to protect and the access to remedy, Access to remedy, UNGP26, Actions taken (page 55).

 Collective remedy and citizen lawsuits (page 17)

‘Businesses generally have much greater financial resources than individuals do, which means that when business behavior infringes upon the rights of an individual consumer, it is often difficult for the latter to receive real relief. Accordingly, the Taiwan government has included provisions in the “Code of Civil Procedure” and the “Consumer Protection Act” that allow for the victims of public safety hazards, consumer disputes, and product defects to initiate class action suits. For persons whose rights have been infringed, this approach makes it more affordable for them to seek relief via the judicial system. In addition, the “Basic Environment Act,” “Environmental Impact Assessment Act,” “Air Pollution Control Act,” “Waste Disposal Act,” “Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act,” “Water Pollution Control Act,” and “Toxic and Concerned Chemical Substances Control Act” all include provisions that allow for citizen suits. When a public or private entity violates the law and the competent authority is negligent in enforcement, victims or public interest groups may notify the competent authority in writing, and if the competent authority continues to ignore the violation, the victims or public interest groups may file a lawsuit with an administrative court.’

This information is also covered under Appendix 4: Overview of the implementation of the state duty to protect and the access to remedy, Access to remedy, UNGP26, Actions taken (page 55).

Extraterritorial jurisdiction (page 18)

‘With respect to any human rights abuses that occur overseas, Taiwan already has laws and regulations which provide that such abuses are subject to the jurisdiction of Taiwan’s judicial authorities no matter where the abuses have taken place. For example, if a responsible person or an employee of a company engages overseas in human trafficking, drug dealing, or piracy (as referred to in Article 5 of Taiwan’s “Criminal Code”), or offers a bribe to a public servant from Taiwan or a foreign nation in connection with cross-border trade, investment, or other business activities (as referred to in Article 11 of the “Anti-Corruption Act”), the offense will be subject to the jurisdiction of Taiwan’s judicial authorities regardless whether the offense is punishable or not under the law of the land where the crime is committed. In addition, the “Regulations Governing the Handling of Companies’ Overseas Investments” provide that when the Taiwan government reviews an investment application, if it discovers that a company has violated the provisions of an international treaty in the course of its overseas investment activities, the application will be rejected. Also, the Taiwan government imposes corporate social responsibility requirements when it grants approval for a company to invest overseas, and at the same time will require the company to abide by the legal requirements of the host jurisdiction.’

This information is also covered under Appendix 4: Overview of the implementation of the state duty to protect and the access to remedy, Access to remedy, UNGP25, Actions taken (page 53).

 

C. Actions planned

  • Continue promoting judicial reform, establish better remedy systems (pages 19-20)

‘As part of an ongoing judicial reform effort that first got underway in 1999, the Taiwan government in 2016 convened a “Presidential Office National Congress on Judicial Reform.” After more than 40 subcommittee discussions, the president convened a summary meeting where she instructed government agencies to implement a total of 303 resolutions. Judicial reform measures pertaining to business and human rights include the following:

On 5 December 2018 the president promulgated the “Labor Incident Act,” which entered into force on 1 January 2020. By setting up special labor courts to hear labor-related litigation, and by establishing the principle of providing labor with convenient access to the courts, this Act appropriately adjusts the principle of party presentation, effectively promotes timely adjudication procedures, and institutes a new regime for prompt securing of rights in order to achieve substantive fairness and provide effective remedy.

On 15 January 2020, the president promulgated the “Commercial Case Adjudication Act” and the “Intellectual Property and Commercial Court Organization Act,” which will enter into force from 1 July 2021. Under the new Acts, special intellectual property and commercial courts at the level of a high court will hear commercial litigation as the court of first instance, and a judgment rendered by such a court can only be appealed once, to the Supreme Court. The idea is to ensure that disputes of this nature can be resolved quickly, appropriately, and professionally. This would improve Taiwan’s business environment and boost economic development.

In the future, government agencies will continue engaging in dialogue with society and soliciting a broad range of opinions to use as reference in developing a reform program that is closely in line with conditions in Taiwan. This program will be actively promoted to facilitate further reform of business-related human rights remedy systems.’

This information is also covered under Appendix 4: Overview of the implementation of the state duty to protect and the access to remedy, Access to remedy, UNGP26, Actions planned (pages 55-57).

  • Strengthening of extraterritorial jurisdiction (pages 20-21)

‘Cross-border litigation occasionally arises due to: (a) human rights violations or environmental destruction caused in Taiwan by foreign multinational corporations engaged in business activities in Taiwan; or (b) human rights violations or environmental destruction caused overseas by Taiwanese corporations (or by multinational corporations controlled by a Taiwanese corporation) engaged in business activities overseas. With respect to such litigation, our government needs to conduct research on how to provide victims with effective remedy channels. The scope of such research should include, without limitation, the following:

  1. Study how to enact rules governing Taiwan’s jurisdiction over cross-border litigation, including litigation filed in Taiwan by foreign nationals not domiciled in Taiwan (but note that, in doing so, we must act in line with the principles of substantive fairness, jurisprudence, and procedural economy).
  2. Study the legality and feasibility of using measures other than fines to deal with the corporate criminal liability of Taiwanese and multinational corporations.
  3. Multinational corporations often use overseas duty-free countries to establish subsidiaries, so we need to study whether the parent companies of multinational corporations are required to bear joint and several liability for indemnification of aggrieved parties when subsidiaries infringe upon the rights of other parties.
  4. Cross-border actions for damages are sometimes filed in connection with environmental destruction caused overseas by multinational corporations, so we need to study whether there is a need to amend related laws and regulations (e.g. environmental protection legislation) to provide for an extended period of prescription.’

This information is also covered under Appendix 4: Overview of the implementation of the state duty to protect and the access to remedy, Access to remedy, UNGP25, Actions planned (page 54).