Court to Review Whether Constitutional Court's Trial Delays Violate Fundamental Rights

A court has decided to examine whether the Constitutional Court violated a petitioner's fundamental rights by delaying a trial.

This is the first case in which a court has publicly raised issue with the Constitutional Court's delay in proceedings.

The Criminal Agreement Division 50 of the Seoul Central District Court (headed by Senior Chief Criminal Judge Jeon Bo-seong) released explanatory materials on Wednesday (June 17), stating, "Based on Article 107, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, we have initiated a review on whether fundamental rights have been violated due to the Constitutional Court's nonfeasance (failure to perform an obligatory duty)."

On June 12, the court sent a "request for opinion on the reasons for the delay in constitutional adjudication" to the Constitutional Court.

Article 107, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution stipulates that when the constitutionality or legality of a decree, regulation, or administrative action is a prerequisite for a trial, the Supreme Court has the final authority to review it.

The court viewed the Constitutional Court's delay in trial as an "omission of action" (nonfeasance) that is subject to judicial review by the judiciary.

The case in question involves Jin Cheon-gyu, the head of Tongil TV, who was accused of violating the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act.

Jin was brought to trial in October 2020 on charges of bringing North Korean books, video materials, and the Rodong Sinmun newspaper into the country through Incheon International Airport in August 2018 without the approval of the Minister of Unification.

During his first trial, Jin requested a referral for a constitutional review of Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act, which requires approval from the Minister of Unification to export or import goods. After his request was dismissed, he directly filed a constitutional petition with the Constitutional Court in June 2022.

Accordingly, the Criminal Division 50 of the Seoul Central District Court, which is presiding over the second trial, decided to suspend the trial until the outcome of the constitutional petition is determined, in line with Jin's arguments.

This was because the court judged that the outcome of the constitutional petition is a prerequisite for the conclusion of this trial.

However, after referring the case to a full adjudication in July of that year, the Constitutional Court has failed to reach a conclusion for nearly four years.

Pointing out the delay in the Constitutional Court's proceedings, the court explained, "The defendant has been placed in an unstable status for a long period, and his fundamental constitutional rights are being infringed upon."

The court pointed out, "Just as all state power is bound by the Constitution, the Constitutional Court must also be bound by the Constitution," adding, "Due to the Constitutional Court's delay in proceedings, the defendant's fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to a speedy trial, have been infringed."

The court argued that in constitutional petition procedures, the right to participate must be guaranteed by reviewing legal and factual issues or, if there are doubts, urging the parties to submit opinions. If the court failed to take such measures and did not reach a conclusion for a long period, it could constitute a violation of the Constitution.

The Criminal Agreement Division 50 of the Seoul Central District Court explained, "This measure is the first request for an opinion based on the premise that the court can raise issues regarding the Constitutional Court's trial practices, and that the Constitutional Court's nonfeasance can be subject to judicial review by the court if it infringes upon the public's fundamental constitutional rights."

The request for opinion sent by the court to the Constitutional Court included inquiries such as: ▲ the stage of the review and reasons for the delay; ▲ the progress of the proceedings, including reports and written opinions between the justice in charge and the rapporteur researcher; and ▲ whether opinions were requested from relevant agencies.

The court requested that the Constitutional Court submit a written opinion containing its response within one month of receiving the request.

In response, the Constitutional Court is reportedly of the position that it is difficult to accept the court's claim that the trial cannot proceed due to the delay in proceedings, as the court can proceed with the trial regardless of the outcome of the constitutional petition.

A Constitutional Court official explained, "For Hun-Ba (constitutional petition for a review of constitutionality of law) cases, the trial is not legally delayed even if a petition is filed, and the court can simply proceed with the trial," adding, "Although it was in the first instance, it is even a case where the court itself dismissed the request for a constitutional review."

Earlier this year, the two institutions engaged in a war of nerves as they implemented the "trial petition" system, which allows constitutional petitions against court rulings. This latest incident has reignited their conflict.

However, since a court presiding over a criminal case cannot practically demand corrections or enforce measures on another institution beyond pronouncing a verdict on the defendant, some predict that the conclusion of the "fundamental rights infringement review" that the court can deliver may be limited.

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.