The Constitutional Court has ruled that a legal provision allowing administrative authorities to clean up abandoned waste first and bill the costs later—in cases where the neglected waste poses a serious threat to the environment—does not violate the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court announced on October 22 that it unanimously decided the provision of the Wastes Control Act governing administrative vicarious execution is constitutional, following a constitutional complaint filed by 22 companies, including foundry manufacturers.

Between February 2011 and September 2015, these manufacturing companies entrusted the disposal of business waste generated during their manufacturing processes to a contractor.

The contractor buried the entrusted waste in an abandoned stone quarry located in Iksan, which led to environmental pollution issues such as leachate leakage causing a mass die-off of fish in local streams.

In response, the Mayor of Iksan, pursuant to the Wastes Control Act, directly removed and treated the waste elsewhere without issuing a separate corrective order, and ordered the manufacturers to pay for the cleanup costs.

Article 49, Paragraph 2, Item 3 of the Wastes Control Act stipulates that if abandoned waste is feared to cause serious harm to residents' health or the environment, administrative authorities may directly process the waste without a separate corrective order and collect the costs.

The companies filed administrative lawsuits and applied for a constitutional review of the law to contest the cost-payment orders. After those were dismissed or rejected, they filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court.

The companies argued that since the waste was buried before 2019—when the relevant provision was newly established—retroactively applying it to collect costs was unfair.

However, the Constitutional Court rejected the companies' argument, stating that if the waste remained abandoned even after the law took effect, it constitutes an ongoing matter.

In addition, the Court noted that because regulations under the Wastes Control Act can be strengthened depending on the severity of environmental pollution, a corrective order does not necessarily have to be issued prior to administrative vicarious execution.

The Court stated, "The public interest in promptly removing and treating waste when there is a risk of causing serious harm to residents' health or the surrounding environment to prevent social costs resulting from delayed processing is extremely significant," adding, "This public interest outweighs the reliance interest of business waste generators."

(Photo: Yonhap News)