Court to Review Whether Constitutional Court's Trial Delays Infringe Fundamental Rights: "Constitutional Court Must Also Be Bound by the Constitution"

"May Be Subject to Judicial Review if Constitutional Fundamental Rights Are Infringed"

The court will review whether the Constitutional Court's delay in proceedings has infringed upon the applicant's fundamental rights.

Seoul Central District Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

According to the legal community on June 17, the Criminal Division 50 of the Seoul Central District Court (Chief Criminal Judge Jeon Boseong) announced, "The court has commenced a review on whether there has been an infringement of fundamental rights due to inaction by the Constitutional Court, based on Article 107, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution." Inaction refers to the failure to perform a duty that ought to be fulfilled.

According to Article 107, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, if an order, rule, or disposition is suspected of violating the Constitution or the law and this becomes a premise of a trial, the Supreme Court holds the final authority to review it.

Previously, the court panel noted that the defendant in a related criminal case had filed a constitutional complaint against Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act, among others. However, the Constitutional Court did not proceed with the review for about four years, which the panel considered a violation of constitutional fundamental rights.

In response, on June 12, the Seoul Central District Court sent a "request for opinions regarding the reasons for the delay in constitutional adjudication" to the Constitutional Court. Reportedly, the request included questions regarding: ▲ the current stage of the review and reasons for the delay ▲ the progress of the proceedings, such as reports and opinions exchanged between the presiding justice and the research judge ▲ and whether related agencies had been consulted for their opinions.

The court requested that the Constitutional Court submit its written response containing answers within one month after receiving the opinion request. The court stated, "Just as all state powers are bound by the Constitution, the Constitutional Court must also be subject to constitutional constraints," adding, "The delay in proceedings by the Constitutional Court has infringed upon the defendant's constitutional fundamental rights, including the right to a speedy trial."

The court further explained, "This measure is the first instance where the court has raised an issue regarding the Constitutional Court's trial practices and has requested an opinion on the premise that the Constitutional Court's inaction may be subject to judicial review if it infringes upon the constitutional fundamental rights of citizens."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.