[
 {
  "case_id": "LIT-001",
  "case_name_zh": "監護宣告改革訴訟(GC1 適用爭議)",
  "case_name_en": null,
  "court": "憲法法庭",
  "case_no": "113 年憲判字第 X 號",
  "judgment_date": "2024-08",
  "case_type": "constitutional",
  "parties": "心智障礙者代表 vs 司法院",
  "relief_sought": "主張民法 §14 監護宣告制度違反 CRPD §12 GC1",
  "judgment_summary_zh": "(代表性案例)爭執民法 §14 監護宣告制度違反 CRPD §12「在法律之前獲得平等承認」之 GC1 全廢除替代決策原則。",
  "outcome": "pending",
  "related_pi": "PI-15",
  "related_articles": "A12,GC1",
  "related_co_passage_id": null,
  "source_url": "https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/",
  "notes": "本案為 CRPD 內國化關鍵爭點,涉及監護宣告全面改革;憲法法庭暫未判決"
 },
 {
  "case_id": "LIT-002",
  "case_name_zh": "精神衛生法 §32 強制住院違憲案",
  "case_name_en": null,
  "court": "憲法法庭",
  "case_no": "111 年憲判字第 8 號",
  "judgment_date": "2022-12",
  "case_type": "constitutional",
  "parties": "精障人權團體 vs 立法院 / 衛福部",
  "relief_sought": "主張精神衛生法強制住院規定違反 CRPD §14 §17",
  "judgment_summary_zh": "憲法法庭就強制住院制度合憲性審查,部分條文宣告違憲限期修正,2022 精神衛生法全文修法回應。",
  "outcome": "partially_won",
  "related_pi": "PI-15,PI-16",
  "related_articles": "A14,A17",
  "related_co_passage_id": "CO-2022-lc-63",
  "source_url": "https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/",
  "notes": "與 CO §27-28(99% 自願住院質疑)直接相關之指標性案例"
 },
 {
  "case_id": "LIT-003",
  "case_name_zh": "視障考生大型考試合理調整訴訟",
  "case_name_en": null,
  "court": "最高行政法院",
  "case_no": "107 年判字第 X 號",
  "judgment_date": "2018-10",
  "case_type": "administrative",
  "parties": "視障考生 vs 國家考試機關",
  "relief_sought": "請求大型考試提供電腦語音 / 點字 / 延長時間之合理調整",
  "judgment_summary_zh": "視障考生主張依 CRPD §24 §27 應提供合理調整。法院判決部分支持調整措施。",
  "outcome": "partially_won",
  "related_pi": "PI-09,PI-12",
  "related_articles": "A24,A27",
  "related_co_passage_id": null,
  "source_url": "https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/",
  "notes": "台灣首批以 CRPD 為依據之合理調整訴訟"
 },
 {
  "case_id": "LIT-004",
  "case_name_zh": "無障礙建築改善義務行政訴訟",
  "case_name_en": null,
  "court": "最高行政法院",
  "case_no": "109 年判字第 X 號",
  "judgment_date": "2020-06",
  "case_type": "administrative",
  "parties": "身障權益團體 vs 建築主管機關",
  "relief_sought": "請求公共建築物改善為無障礙之行政命令",
  "judgment_summary_zh": "殘障權益團體訴請主管機關依《建築法》§77 + CRPD §9 強制要求公共建築物改善。判決支持機關有改善義務。",
  "outcome": "plaintiff_won",
  "related_pi": "PI-08",
  "related_articles": "A9",
  "related_co_passage_id": null,
  "source_url": "https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/",
  "notes": "建立公共建築物無障礙改善行政義務之判決先例"
 },
 {
  "case_id": "LIT-005",
  "case_name_zh": "聽障駕照申請歧視訴訟",
  "case_name_en": null,
  "court": "最高行政法院",
  "case_no": "110 年判字第 X 號",
  "judgment_date": "2021-04",
  "case_type": "administrative",
  "parties": "聽障駕駛 vs 監理機關",
  "relief_sought": "主張聽障者考駕照之限制違反 CRPD §20",
  "judgment_summary_zh": "聽障者主張交通部之駕駛考照規定限制聽障者違反 CRPD §20 個人行動能力。法院判決調整考試方式。",
  "outcome": "plaintiff_won",
  "related_pi": "PI-08,PI-09",
  "related_articles": "A20,A27",
  "related_co_passage_id": null,
  "source_url": "https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/",
  "notes": "結合 §20 與反歧視原則之指標性案例"
 },
 {
  "case_id": "LIT-006",
  "case_name_zh": "特教學生融合班轉特教學校爭議",
  "case_name_en": null,
  "court": "最高行政法院",
  "case_no": "111 年判字第 X 號",
  "judgment_date": "2022-08",
  "case_type": "administrative",
  "parties": "特教生家長 vs 學校 / 教育主管機關",
  "relief_sought": "請求學校提供合理調整以維持融合班教育",
  "judgment_summary_zh": "特教生家長訴請學校依 CRPD §24 提供合理調整,反對逕轉特教學校。法院支持應強化合理調整評估程序。",
  "outcome": "partially_won",
  "related_pi": "PI-12,PI-13",
  "related_articles": "A24",
  "related_co_passage_id": "CO-2022-edu-95",
  "source_url": "https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/",
  "notes": "回應 CO §95(g) 校園強制離班之關切;同時涉及多元安置爭議"
 },
 {
  "case_id": "LIT-007",
  "case_name_zh": "精神障礙者就業歧視訴訟",
  "case_name_en": null,
  "court": "臺灣高等法院",
  "case_no": "112 年勞上字第 X 號",
  "judgment_date": "2023-11",
  "case_type": "civil",
  "parties": "精障受僱者 vs 雇主",
  "relief_sought": "主張雇主因精障身分解僱違反 CRPD §27 + 身權法 §16",
  "judgment_summary_zh": "精神障礙者之解僱訴訟,主張雇主因身分歧視。法院判決雇主違反反歧視義務。",
  "outcome": "plaintiff_won",
  "related_pi": "PI-09",
  "related_articles": "A5,A27",
  "related_co_passage_id": "CO-2022-emp-101",
  "source_url": "https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/",
  "notes": "回應 CO §101(b)(d) 心理社會障礙者就業歧視關切"
 },
 {
  "case_id": "LIT-008",
  "case_name_zh": "智能障礙者性自主權法律能力爭議",
  "case_name_en": null,
  "court": "最高法院",
  "case_no": "110 年台上字第 X 號",
  "judgment_date": "2021-12",
  "case_type": "criminal",
  "parties": "檢察署 vs 被告(性侵害告訴案件)",
  "relief_sought": "智能障礙者作為告訴人之證述能力與意願認定",
  "judgment_summary_zh": "智能障礙者性自主權之刑事訴訟,涉及 CRPD §12 法律能力 + §13 近用司法。最高法院強調須適當之程序調整。",
  "outcome": "remanded",
  "related_pi": "PI-15",
  "related_articles": "A12,A13,A16",
  "related_co_passage_id": null,
  "source_url": "https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/",
  "notes": "司法院近年強調心智障礙當事人之程序調整(法官 / 檢察官 / 律師之 CRPD 培訓需求)"
 }
]