The Judicial Yuan to Submit for Legislation Proposed Amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure to Speed Up Civil Proceedings.

　Taiwan Judicial Yuan approved the proposed amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure at the meeting of 14 October 2008.  The proposed amendment incorporating the revision of eight articles under the Accounting & Taxation of Litigation Expenses and addition of Articles 31-1 to 31-3 are to be submitted for legislation.  The amendment is proposed to, among other purposes, safeguard people’s right to initiate civil actions, expedite proceedings and secure stability of action, and to reduce the burden of litigation expenses.  The following is highlight of the proposed amendment.

1.  According to the current Code of Civil Procedure, where the claimant has mistakenly initiated a civil action for an administrative suit, the civil court will dismiss the action and the claimant is compelled to forfeit the court cost paid.  Under the amendment, the civil court in such case shall sua sponte transfer the matter to the administrative court for adjudication and the court costs paid to the civil court will be used to pay for the administrative action and the administrative court shall return the excess amount received, if any.

2.  Hearing on a motion seeking a payment order will no longer be required.  The creditor may obtain an execution order of the same enforceability as that of a final judgment with binding effects.  Also, the costs taxed on the motion will be reduced from TWD1,000 to TWD500 to encourage people to seek payment orders instead of initiating action which is comparatively time-consuming.

3.  Under the amendment, where the court erroneously indicates in the judgment that either party may appeal the judgment to the court of third instance thereby leads the party to pay the required court cost for taking an appeal, the court shall on motion or on its own initiative return the court cost received upon dismissing the appeal.

4.  The provision that an interlocutory re-appeal can be taken upon and only upon approval by the lower court is repealed.

5.  A third paragraph is added to Article 77-26 that the court shall, on motion or on its own initiative, return the litigation expenses received from the appellate who took the appeal or administrative appeal as a result of the erroneous explanation given by the court or otherwise of similar nature.

　For example:  A creditor relying on the confirmation of irrevocable payment order issued by the court presents the certificate to the execution office of the court upon application for compulsory execution.  In the process of performing the execution, however, the issuer court of the certificate finds that the payment order has not been legally served and thus revokes the certificate and the execution court denies the creditor’s application for compulsory execution as a result.  Under the amendment, the creditor in such case may request for return of the execution fees paid pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 30 of the Compulsory Execution Act where the above-proposed additional provision shall apply with necessary and appropriate alterations.

6.  The third paragraph of Article 77-22 is revised to provide that the trial court shall collect the court cost exempted on legal grounds from the party ordered to bear the litigation expenses after the judgment becomes final with binding effects.

7.  Where the court mistakenly issues a confirmation of payment order which has been void due to irregular service and, as a result, the creditor missed the deadline to initiate the action needed to interrupt the lapse of prescription.  According to the new additional provision to Article 515, the creditor shall be deemed to have initiated the action on the date of his/her motion for payment order if he/she files the letter complaint within 20 days after being served the court’s notice of revocation of the erroneous confirmation except when a five-year term has lapsed from the date of the date of the erroneous confirmation.  (2008.10)

/CCS