Recruitment of Volunteer Attorneys for the "Administrative Litigation Act Amendment Research Special Group"

On December 14 of last year (2021), the Judicial Yuan passed the Draft Amendment to the "Administrative Litigation Act" and submitted it to the Legislative Yuan for review. Notably, the official draft introduces major adjustments to the current administrative litigation organization, along with other systematic modifications and additions (excerpted below; please refer to the full draft for complete details of the amendments):

1. The "administrative litigation divisions" previously dispersed across various district courts will be consolidated into High Administrative Courts through the establishment of new "Local Administrative Dispute Divisions," which are equivalent in trial hierarchy to "Local Administrative Courts." These divisions will be exclusively responsible for certain administrative litigation cases such as "summary litigation procedure cases" and "traffic adjudication cases." It is anticipated that convenience for citizens across different regions in filing and responding to lawsuits will be ensured through methods such as "remote trials" and "circuit courts."
2. Expanding the scope of mandatory attorney representation.
3. Strengthening the mechanism for High Administrative Courts to transfer cases to the Supreme Administrative Court for the unification of judicial interpretations.
4. Establishing a dissenting opinion system for judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court.

To ensure that the amendments to the "Administrative Litigation Act" reflect the actual needs of the people and that lawsuits brought by citizens against the government are handled more effectively and fairly, the JRF plans to establish a special research group. This group will review the Judicial Yuan's draft bill and practical issues in current administrative litigation cases, synthesize opinions from various sectors, and propose amendment recommendations.

Therefore, we warmly look forward to lawyer friends joining the ranks of legislative research and becoming partners to fight together for our ideals. We sincerely invite you to participate in the "Administrative Litigation Act Amendment Research Special Group," become another progressive force in Taiwanese society, and join hands to advance judicial reform!

Special Group Convener
Yang-Hui Kao, Attorney-at-Law (Standing Executive Committee Member, Judicial Reform Foundation)

Online Registration

Time

April 26 (Tue.) 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM

※ If you are willing to participate in this special group but cannot attend at the aforementioned time, please still leave your information via the registration link. The Foundation will send you the agenda and meeting minutes for reference and invite you to subsequent meetings. Meanwhile, you may also provide written comments, highly relevant case references, and other information prior to the meeting for discussion by attendees.

Location

JRF Large Conference Room (7F., No. 3, Lane 90, Songjiang Rd., Zhongshan Dist., Taipei City)

※ Online participation available

※ If the meeting location is changed, a separate notice will be issued.

Agenda

Time	Agenda	Speaker / Discussion Content
19:00~19:10 (10 mins)	Convener's Remarks and Briefing	Attorney Yang-Hui Kao
19:00~19:30 (30 mins)	General Exchange	Mutual introduction among all participating members
19:30~19:45 (15 mins)	Secretariat Report	Attorney Cheng-Yen Lu (Deputy Director of Legislative Policy Department, JRF)
19:45~20:50 (65 mins)	Discussion and Exchange of Opinions	First, conduct a broad discussion on the direction of the amendments to this Act. Upon reaching a preliminary consensus, discuss the following issues step-by-step (tentative): Is the reorganization of the administrative court system appropriate? Are the current provisions concerning types of litigation complete (e.g., whether "preventive prohibitory actions" should be expressly added)? Is it appropriate to introduce a system involving professional commissioners (similar provisions exist in the Judicial Yuan's draft amendment to the "Code of Civil Procedure")? Can this be properly coordinated with the existing expert testimony system? Is it appropriate to expand the scope of mandatory attorney representation? Should the introduction of an expert witness system be considered? (Reference: Wen-Hsiang Kung, "The Feasibility of Introducing the Anglo-American Expert Witness System into Taiwan's Administrative Litigation," collected in: Collected Papers on the Administrative Litigation System, Vol. 8, December 2016) Can the evidence disclosure (discovery) system be properly introduced into Taiwan's administrative litigation? (Reference: Cheng-Yi Huang, "Evidence Disclosure and Administrative Litigation," Taiwan Jurist, No. 5, May 2021) Other
20:50~21:00 (10 mins)	Confirmation of Research Division and Next Meeting Time	--

※ The agenda and discussion topics are listed for tentative reference only. Detailed reports and discussion proposals will be notified via email prior to the meeting. In addition to the tentative agenda, esteemed attorneys are warmly encouraged to generously provide discussion directions and opinions.