March 18 Anti-Black-Box Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement Pro Bono Lawyers Platform | Litigation Database
Last edited: 2026-08-24
➤ Database Contents
❙ Case Types:
The 318 Anti-Black Box Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement ("CSSTA") Volunteer Lawyers’ Platform (click to return to the general case summary page) handled cases arising from both the March 18 Incident and the March 24 Executive Yuan violent dispersal incident. The latter, in particular, can be divided into three categories:
- First, "defense cases," in which individuals prosecuted by the government for occupying the Legislative Yuan or the Executive Yuan required legal assistance. The charges included unlawful entry, inciting others to commit an offense, and destruction of property under the control of public officials, among others.
- Second, "state compensation cases," involving lawsuits brought by individuals who were violently dispersed through the exercise of public authority.
- Third, "private prosecution cases," which are the most complex in terms of case assignment and materials. Because citizens spontaneously sought accountability from different perspectives, and because the courts handled the cases based on the identity of the defendants and other procedural considerations, these materials are further divided into cases against frontline police officers who allegedly committed acts of violence and cases against police commanders at different levels of the chain of command.
Note: Following the March 18 Incident in 2014, the April 28 Zhongxiao West Road anti-Fourth Nuclear Power Plant protest dispersal incident and the June 26 Wulai vehicle-blocking incident occurred in succession. At that time, the Volunteer Lawyers’ Platform expanded into a platform providing broader assistance to social movements, and the related cases were therefore also handled by the Platform. However, due to the large volume of materials, these cases are not specifically included in this database. In particular, many of the private prosecution cases involved unidentified police officers whose identities could not be determined. As a result, some folders contain only judgments dismissing the private prosecutions or a small number of official documents.
❙ Material Types:
- Due to the large number of cases and parties involved, and because different cases may involve the same legal issues, after comparing various approaches, we decided to archive the materials simply by case number.
- Each "case number" folder contains varying amounts of material, including case-file review materials, transcripts, court notices, and other documents.
- First-instance and appellate proceedings involving the same case are distinguished by numbering (e.g., 7-1, 7-2, 7-3).
- Folder List (ordered by case number): See the link.
➤ Database User Guide
❙ Sources of Materials:
Behind the Volunteer Lawyers’ Platform's ten years of operation was the administrative support provided by successive generations of volunteers and full-time staff. As some lawyers withdrew due to career plans or other reasons, several groups of younger lawyers joined over time to take over the work. Accordingly, until all of the cases were concluded, the materials accumulated internally by the Judicial Reform Foundation came from various volunteer lawyers and parties, and their methods of archiving and scanning differed. Some materials are indeed absent from this database because they were never returned.
❙ Consent of the Parties:
Although the materials currently preserved by the Judicial Reform Foundation were provided by parties and lawyers during the course of litigation, the Platform was originally established to respond immediately to litigation needs rather than for the purpose of creating an academic database. The parties were therefore not specifically asked at the time to sign written authorizations consenting to the creation of such a database.
To address research ethics requirements for future researchers, the Judicial Reform Foundation has attempted to obtain consent from the parties using the contact information currently available. At present, we have been able to reach only approximately half of the parties. Consequently, the database cannot be made fully and directly available to the public on the website. Researchers interested in accessing the database are requested to provide the following information, after which the Judicial Reform Foundation will contact them for further discussion:
- Name
- Affiliated organization
- Research topic and anticipated scope of cases involved
- Contact email address and telephone number
- Agreement to the confidentiality and consent provisions (I understand that only a portion of the materials in this database has been authorized by the parties for public use, while the remaining materials may be used only for internal reference. I agree to review and use the materials only after an interview with the Judicial Reform Foundation and after signing the relevant confidentiality and consent forms.)
Regarding Authorization: If you believe that materials contained in this database may relate to your case and you wish to provide authorization or request that access to the materials be discontinued, please contact us through the following form.
Key Overview:
Because the materials are organized by "case number," the litigation records accumulated over the past decade are extensive, while civil society resources remain limited and do not allow the database to incorporate advanced features such as AI-powered search. Researchers wishing to search for materials by "specific issue" keywords are therefore advised to first identify potentially relevant case numbers by reviewing major judgments or news overviews.
| Overview of Important Judgments |
|---|
- Preservation of Evidence: Taiwan Taipei District Court Administrative Ruling 103-Quan-1
- March 18 Incident: Taiwan Taipei District Court Criminal Judgment 104-Zhu-Su-1 (Seven Requirements of Civil Disobedience), Taiwan High Court Criminal Judgment 106-Zhu-Shang-Su-1
- March 24 Incident (Private Prosecution): There were numerous private prosecution cases. Those brought against unidentified police officers were all dismissed. Acquittals involving police commanders include Taiwan Taipei District Court Criminal Judgment 108-Zi-Geng-Er-5 (against Ma Ying-jeou, Jiang Yi-huah, Wang Cho-chiun, and Fang Yang-ning) and Supreme Court Criminal Judgment 109-Tai-Shang-2784 (against Huang Sheng-yung).
- March 24 Incident (State Compensation): Taiwan High Court Judgment 109-Shang-Guo-16 (awarding compensation for state violence)
- March 24 Incident (Defense): Supreme Court Criminal Judgment 109-Tai-Shang-3695 (recognizing the right of resistance and civil disobedience), Supreme Court Criminal Judgment 111-Tai-Shang-314
- March 24 Fourth-Anniversary Paint-Splashing Incident (Official website explanation): Taiwan Taipei District Court Criminal Judgment 108-Yi-998, Taiwan High Court Criminal Judgment 109-Shang-Yi-2400 (a derivative case involving the offense of insulting a public office)
This article is an AI-generated translation of the original Chinese text. In the event of any discrepancy, the Chinese version shall prevail.