Judges Act Article 35
Where judges have any of the circumstances in Paragraph 2 of Article 30, the following individuals, agencies, or organizations may, if they deem it necessary, file a petition to the Judicial Evaluation Committee to request it to initiate an individual case evaluation:1. Three or more judges from the same agency where the judge to be evaluated is affiliated.2. The affiliated agency, the superior agency, or the prosecutors' office is the counterpart of the affiliated court of the judge to be evaluated.3. The local bar association within the jurisdiction of the court with which the judge to be evaluated is affiliated or the national bar association. 4. Parties other than prosecutors or victims of criminal offenses in cases that were undertaken and have been concluded by the judge to be evaluated.With regard to the various circumstances in Paragraph 2 of Article 30, a judge may file a petition to the agency with which he/she is affiliated to petition the Judicial Evaluation Committee to initiate an individual case evaluation if he/she deems it necessary to clarify matters.The petition referred to in the preceding two paragraphs shall be submitted in writing together with the transcripts that state the following items and be enclosed with relevant materials:1. The name and domicile or residence of the petitioner, and the name of the affiliated agency; where the petitioner is an agency or organization, the name thereof, the name of its representative, and the location of the agency or organization.2. The name of the judge to be evaluated and the name of the affiliated agency or the agency where the fact to be evaluated occurred. 3. Specific facts related to the circumstances listed in various subparagraphs of Paragraph 2 of Article 30.4. The date of filing the petition for evaluation.Where the petition for an individual case evaluation falls under any of the following circumstances, the Judicial Evaluation Committee shall decide not to accept the case:1. There is no specific content, real name, or address.2. The petition is being filed again for the same cause after the Judicial Evaluation Committee has resolved not to submit the case for evaluation.In handling the petition for the individual evaluation, it shall first review whether there is any ground to dismiss the case or deny the evaluation in accordance with the preceding paragraph and the provisions in Article 37, and shall not forthwith engage in the investigation or notify the judge to be evaluated to express his/her opinions.When the Judicial Evaluation Committee reviews the individual case evaluation, out of the necessity to determine the pattern of misconduct or under the circumstances that it is known that the judge to be evaluated has other circumstances that should be evaluated, the misconduct unsolicited in the petition may be combined into the investigation and review.
中文原文 法官法第35條
法官有第三十條第二項各款情事之一者，下列人員或機關、團體認為有個案評鑑之必要時，得請求法官評鑑委員會進行個案評鑑：
一、受評鑑法官所屬機關法官三人以上。
二、受評鑑法官所屬機關、上級機關或所屬法院對應設置之檢察署。
三、受評鑑法官所屬法院管轄區域之律師公會或全國性律師公會。
四、受評鑑法官所承辦已終結案件檢察官以外之當事人或犯罪被害人。
就第三十條第二項各款情事，法官認有澄清之必要時，得陳請所屬機關請求法官評鑑委員會個案評鑑之。
前二項請求，應提出書狀及繕本，記載下列各款事項，並檢附相關資料：
一、請求人之姓名及住所或居所、所屬機關名稱；請求人為機關、團體者，其名稱、代表人姓名及機關、團體所在地。
二、受評鑑法官之姓名及所屬或評鑑事實發生機關名稱。
三、與第三十條第二項各款所列情事有關之具體事實。
四、請求評鑑之日期。
個案評鑑事件之請求有下列情形之一者，法官評鑑委員會應決定不予受理：
一、無具體之內容或未具真實姓名或住址。
二、同一事由，經法官評鑑委員會決議不付評鑑後仍一再請求。
個案評鑑事件之請求，應先依前項及第三十七條規定審查有無應不予受理或不付評鑑之情事，不得逕予調查或通知受評鑑法官陳述意見。
法官評鑑委員會審議個案評鑑事件，為確定違失行為模式之必要，或已知受評鑑法官有其他應受評鑑之情事時，得就未經請求之違失情事，併予調查及審議。
一、受評鑑法官所屬機關法官三人以上。
二、受評鑑法官所屬機關、上級機關或所屬法院對應設置之檢察署。
三、受評鑑法官所屬法院管轄區域之律師公會或全國性律師公會。
四、受評鑑法官所承辦已終結案件檢察官以外之當事人或犯罪被害人。
就第三十條第二項各款情事，法官認有澄清之必要時，得陳請所屬機關請求法官評鑑委員會個案評鑑之。
前二項請求，應提出書狀及繕本，記載下列各款事項，並檢附相關資料：
一、請求人之姓名及住所或居所、所屬機關名稱；請求人為機關、團體者，其名稱、代表人姓名及機關、團體所在地。
二、受評鑑法官之姓名及所屬或評鑑事實發生機關名稱。
三、與第三十條第二項各款所列情事有關之具體事實。
四、請求評鑑之日期。
個案評鑑事件之請求有下列情形之一者，法官評鑑委員會應決定不予受理：
一、無具體之內容或未具真實姓名或住址。
二、同一事由，經法官評鑑委員會決議不付評鑑後仍一再請求。
個案評鑑事件之請求，應先依前項及第三十七條規定審查有無應不予受理或不付評鑑之情事，不得逕予調查或通知受評鑑法官陳述意見。
法官評鑑委員會審議個案評鑑事件，為確定違失行為模式之必要，或已知受評鑑法官有其他應受評鑑之情事時，得就未經請求之違失情事，併予調查及審議。