Subtitles: A Counterattack Begins? "Constitutional Court Subject to Judicial Review" — Tensions Escalate

For the first time in history, the judiciary has decided to review the deliberation process of the Constitutional Court.

The 50th Criminal Agreement Division of the Seoul Central District Court stated today (June 17) that "the court has initiated a review into whether the Constitutional Court's inaction constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights, based on Article 107, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution."

A defendant currently on trial before the division had filed a constitutional complaint regarding Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act. It is reported that the court determined the defendant's constitutional rights are being infringed upon because the Constitutional Court has failed to proceed with deliberations for approximately four years.

Accordingly, the court announced that it sent a "Request for Opinion on the Reasons for Constitutional Review Delays" to the Constitutional Court on the 12th, requesting a written response within one month.

This marks the first instance of a court publicly challenging the Constitutional Court over delays in its proceedings, as the judiciary examines whether the delays have infringed upon the claimant's fundamental rights.

Regarding this measure, the court pointed out, "Just as all state power is bound by the Constitution, the Constitutional Court must also be bound by it," adding, "The Constitutional Court's delay in deliberations has infringed upon the defendant's constitutional fundamental rights, such as the right to a speedy trial."

The court further explained, "This is the first request for an opinion premised on the fact that the judiciary can raise issues regarding the Constitutional Court's trial practices and that the Constitutional Court's inaction can be subject to judicial review by the courts if it infringes upon the people's constitutional fundamental rights."

Following the introduction of the constitutional complaint system in March, the Constitutional Court has formally referred several complaints challenging procedural violations or the validity of legal interpretations to full-bench deliberations.

As of the 9th of this month, the Constitutional Court had referred 8 out of 877 received complaints to full-bench adjudication.

Opposition within the judiciary appears to be growing in response to these moves by the Constitutional Court.

Recently, a sitting judge published a paper arguing that "the scope of review for constitutional complaints should not be expanded to include simple reviews of legal violations or the validity of legal interpretations."

Amid the ongoing, subtle power struggle between the courts and the Constitutional Court since the introduction of the constitutional complaint system, legal experts are analyzing the court's sudden decision to review the Constitutional Court's actions as a sign that the friction has officially escalated.

Reported by Kim Jiuk | Video by Ahn Jun-hyeok | Graphics by Lee Su-min | Produced by SBS Digital News
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.