The Judicial Yuan shall establish the Judicial Evaluation Committee to conduct the evaluation of judges.
An individual case evaluation shall be conducted on the judge who has any of the following circumstances:
1. For cases with final adjudications or cases that have been pending without final adjudications for more than six years since the date of the filing of action of the first instance, there are sufficient facts to conclude the existence of obvious errors, committed intentionally or with gross negligence, which causes a serious infringement on the rights and interests of the people.
2. Severe violations of Subparagraph 2, Paragraph 1 of Article 21.
3. Violations of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15.
4. Severe violations of Paragraph 1 of Article 15, Article 16, or Article 18.
5. Severe violations of rules for case management procedures or rules for duties.
6. Undue delay of the case process without proper justification which severely affects the rights and interests of the parties.
7. Severe violations of ethical rules for judges.
Legal opinions on the application of law shall not be taken into consideration as the basis of individual case evaluation of judges.

(Deleted)

The Judicial Yuan shall conduct a group performance rating among the various levels of courts once every three years and publicizethe results as the reference of performance rating for the presidents of various levels of courts.
The Judicial Yuan shall promulgate the criteria, items, and methods for the performance grading referred to in the preceding paragraph.

The Judicial Evaluation Committee shall be composed of three judges, one prosecutor, three attorneys, as well as six scholars and social representatives; the members of the Evaluation Committee shall serve a two-year term and may be re-commissioned for another term.
The members of the Evaluation Committee who have one of the following circumstances shall recuse themselves and shall not perform their duties:
1. The member of the Evaluation Committee or his/her spouse, former spouse, or unmarried spouse is a party to the case involved in the evaluation event.
2. The member of the Evaluation Committee is or was the blood relative within the eighth degree of kinship or the relative by marriage within the fifth degree of kinship of the judge being evaluated or of the petitioner.
3. The member of the Evaluation Committee or his/her spouse, former spouse, or unmarried spouse has a relationship with the parties as a joint right holder, joint obligor, or debtor concerning the case involved in the evaluation event.
4. In the case involved in the evaluation event, the member of the Evaluation Committee is currently or had once been the agent, defender, assistant ad litem or parent, or family member of the party concerned.
5. The member of the Evaluation Committee had once been a witness or appraiser in the case involved in the evaluation event.
6. The member of the Evaluation Committee had once participated in the self-disciplinary procedure for judges of the evaluation event.
7. The member of the Evaluation Committee is currently in office or had once been appointed for the last three years to handle various cases undertaken by the judge to be evaluated.
In the following circumstances, the petitioner or the judge to be evaluated may petition for the recusal of the member of the Evaluation Committee:
1. The member of the Evaluation Committee falls within any of the circumstances specified in the preceding paragraph but fails to recuse him/herself.
2. The member of the Evaluation Committee has circumstances other than those specified in the preceding paragraph, which is sufficient to believe that the performance of his/her duties may be biased.
If the Judicial Evaluation Committee is in the opinion that the member of the Evaluation Committee has reasons to recuse him/herself, or upon the petition of the preceding paragraph, it shall adopt a decision on whether to grant the recusal, provided that the member of the Evaluation Committee who is the target for the recusal petition shall not participate in such a resolution.
The resolution in the preceding paragraph shall not be appealed.

The means of selection of the committee member shall be as follows:
1. Judge representatives shall be voted by all judges.
2. Prosecutor representatives shall be voted by all prosecutors.
3. Attorney representatives shall be recommended respectively by local bar associations with one to three candidates, which nomination is to be submitted to the Taiwan Bar Association for the voting by attorneys nationwide.
4. Scholars and social representatives shall be recommended respectively by the Ministry of Justice and the Taiwan Bar Association with six candidates other than judges, prosecutors, and attorneys, which nomination is to be submitted to the President of the Judicial Yuan for selection and appointment.
Candidates shall not serve as committee members in the preceding paragraph with one of the followings circumstances:
1. Being current presidents of courts and their branches at all levels.
2. Being current chief prosecutors of prosecutors' offices and their branches at all levels.
3. Being current directors general of the national and local bar associations.
4. Being civil servants other than the ones referred to in Subparagraphs 1 and 2 in the preceding paragraph. However, faculty and research personnel of public schools at all levels and academic and research institutions shall not apply thereto.
5. Being staff members of political parties.
When the President of the Judicial Yuan appoints by means of selecting the committee members in Subparagraph 4 of Paragraph 1, the number of each gender of the members shall not be less than one-third of all the committee members.
The Judicial Yuan, the Executive Yuan, and the Taiwan Bar Association shall respectively formulate regulations concerning the qualifications, election procedures, filling of vacancies of members of the Evaluation Committee, and other related matters.

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.

The petition for an individual case evaluation of the judge shall be filed within the following periods of time:
1. For petitions not involved in cases undertaken by the judge to be evaluated, they shall be filed within three years from the end of the fact to be evaluated.
2. For petitions involved in cases undertaken by the judge to be evaluated and not concluded with adjudication, they shall be filed within three years from the day when such cases are concluded.
3. For petitions involved in cases undertaken by the judge to be evaluated and concluded with adjudication, they shall be filed within three years from the day when the adjudications on such cases become final and binding. However, no petitions shall be filed if more than six years have passed since the conclusion of the case.
4. For circumstances under Subparagraph 1, Paragraph 2 of Article 30, petitions shall be filed within three years from the day when the adjudication becomes final and binding or when six years have passed since the action was filed.
If the facts to be evaluated are not submitted for evaluation due to the passing of statutes of limitations for petitions under the preceding paragraph, it shall not affect the exercise of judicial supervisory authority or submission to disciplinary proceedings.

The Judicial Evaluation Committee shall adopt the resolution to deny petitions for the individual case evaluation under any of the following circumstances:
1. The petition for the individual case evaluation does not conform to the provisions of Paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 35.
2. The petition for the individual case evaluation has exceeded the time limit stipulated in Paragraph 1 of the preceding Article.
3. The petition is out of the scope of an individual case evaluation of judges.
4. The petition is for the purpose of seeking legal opinions.
5. The petition is a resubmission for evaluation on matters already adjudicated by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary, impeached by the Control Yuan, or resolved by the Judicial Evaluation Committee.
6. Death of the judge to be evaluated.
7. The petition is apparently groundless.

The Judicial Evaluation Committee shall resolve to deny the petition if the judge is deemed not to have any of the situations stipulated in Article 30, Paragraph 2. Where necessary, the petition may be forwarded to the duty supervisor for proper dispositions in accordance with Article 21.

The Judicial Evaluation Committee may adopt the following resolutions if it deems that the judge has any of the various circumstances in Paragraph 2 of Article 30:
1. Where disciplinary measures are necessary, the case shall be forwarded by the Judicial Yuan and submitted to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary for review. The types of disciplinary measures may be recommended in such submission for review.
2. Where disciplinary measures are not necessary, the case shall be forwarded by the Judicial Yuan and transferred to the Judicial Personnel Review Committee for review. The types of disposition measures may be recommended in such a transfer for review.
In the case of the first subparagraph of the preceding paragraph, the Judicial Yuan shall inform the Control Yuan of the resolution adopted.
Before the resolution referred to in Paragraph 1 is adopted, the judge to be evaluated shall be afforded an opportunity to express his/her opinions.

The Judicial Yuan shall, in accordance with the resolution adopted by the Judicial Evaluation Committee under the preceding Article, enclose the relevant materials of the judge under the individual case evaluation and submit the case to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary for review or transfer the case to the Judicial Personnel Review Committee for review respectively.

The resolution of the Judicial Evaluation Committee, unless otherwise stipulated in this Act, shall be adopted by the attendance of one-half or more of the total committee members and with the consent of more than half of the committee members in attendance.
The Judicial Evaluation Committee may make the decision in Paragraph 4 of Article 35 and to adopt the resolution in Article 37 based on the review of three of its members and the consensus of such three members. The composition of such three members shall be determined by the Committee.
The Judicial Evaluation Committee shall adopt the resolutions in Articles 38 and 39 based on the attendance of two-thirds or more of the total committee members and the consent of more than half of the committee members in attendance.
The total number of the committee members referred to in Paragraphs 1 and 3 shall exclude vacancies resulting from those who are not appointed or elected in accordance with the regulations, discharged of duty, deceased or recused during the voting or their term of office, provided that the total number shall be no less than eight.

The Judicial Evaluation Committee may conduct necessary investigations upon the petition of the judge under evaluation and the petitioner or ex officio, and notify related parties to appear for explanations; the information acquired from the investigation, unless otherwise provided by laws or regulations, shall not be provided to other agencies, organizations, or individuals, or shall not be made available for browsing or transcribing.
Petitions made by judges under evaluation and petitioners to appear at the meeting for making statements of opinions shall not be denied unless they are obviously unnecessary; the making of statements may be restricted at the meeting if it involves improper words and conduct.
The petitioner may file a petition for the delivery of the opinion submitted by the judge under evaluation. The Judicial Evaluation Committee shall not restrict or deny such a petition without a legitimate reason; if it consents to the delivery, a reasonable period of time shall also be given to the judge under evaluation to express his/her opinions.
The judge under evaluation and the petitioner may file a petition for reading, transcribing, photocopying or video recording the materials acquired from the investigation in Paragraph 1. However, the Judicial Evaluation Committee may restrict or deny the petition under one of the following circumstances:
1. Drafts composed before the resolution on the individual case evaluation is to be adopted.
2. Preparatory documents or documents to be reviewed for adopting resolutions on the individual case evaluation.
3. It is necessary to protect the legitimate rights and interests of third parties.
4. It is otherwise required to keep it confidential pursuant to the law or based on the public interest.
The information acquired from the petition pursuant to the preceding paragraph shall be kept confidential.
The evaluation procedures with regard to the investigation of facts and evidence, dates and periods, and service of process shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act unless otherwise provided in this Act.

Where an individual case evaluation involves the pending case undertaken by the judge to be evaluated, the evaluation proceeding shall be imposed a stay until the said judge finalizes the said case.
The Judicial Yuan shall employ specialized personnel to assist in the review of petitions for evaluation and the investigation of the evaluation, as well as other matters related to the evaluation in accordance with the law.
In exercising the functions and powers, the Judicial Evaluation Committee shall concurrently take into consideration the full play of the evaluation functions and the procedural protections to the judge under evaluation, while not affecting judicial independence.
Unless consented to by the judge under evaluation or resolved by the Judicial Evaluation Committee, the exercise of the functions and powers in the preceding paragraph shall not be made public.
The resolution adopted by the Judicial Evaluation Committee shall be made public on the website of the Judicial Evaluation Committee. However, if other laws provide otherwise, such law shall prevail.
The Judicial Yuan shall formulate the regulations for the organization, implementing measures of the evaluation, and ethics codes for members of the Judicial Evaluation Committee.