Implementing Regulation Of The Judges Act Article 12

This English translation was last updated on 2012-07-05, but the Chinese text was amended on 2023-06-21. Later amendments may not be reflected in the translation — please refer to the Chinese text.

For those who have already served concurrently as presidents of the court prior to the implementation of the Act, their terms shall be counted from the date of assignment, provided, however, that the term which shall be recounted in accordance with the regulation prior to the implementation of the Act, shall be counted from the assumption of the new position.For those who have already served as division-chief judges prior to the implementation of the Act, their term shall be counted in accordance with the following provisions:(1) For those who have served more than eight years as division-chief judges in courts of the second instance, to be dismissed the concurrent service as a division-chief judge on the day on which his/her current term of office expires; if more than four years but less than eight years, shall be submitted to the Judicial Personnel Review Committee to consider an extension at the expiration of eight years, and shall extend the term for no more than three years if approved; if less than four years, may be re-appointed once for no more than three years.(2) For those who have served more than six years as division-chief judges in courts of first instance, to be dismissed the concurrent service as a division-chief judge on the day on which his/her current term of office expires; if more than three years but less than six years, shall be submitted to the Judicial Personnel Review Committee to consider an extension at the expiration of six years, and shall extend the term for no more than three years if approved; if less than three years, may be re-appointed once for no more than three years.
中文原文 法官法施行細則第12條
本法第十四條所稱法官就職時,指初任法官、試署法官改派實任法官、回任或再任法官、兼任庭長、兼任或調任院長等職務。
法官就職時因特殊情形,未及宣誓而先行任事者,應於三個月內補行宣誓。

English translation for reference only; the Chinese text prevails. Not legal advice.