Constitutional Court: "State Liability Recognized Only When Public Officials Are Intentional or Negligent... State Compensation Act Constitutional"

[Asia Economy Reporter Song Seung-yoon] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the current law, which recognizes the state's liability for damages only when a public official commits an illegal act intentionally or negligently in the course of performing their duties, is constitutional.

On the 15th, the Constitutional Court announced that it decided by a 5 to 3 majority that the National Compensation Act Article 2, Paragraph 1 is constitutional in a constitutional complaint case filed by parties and their families who were investigated and tried in the past under Emergency Measures No. 1 and No. 9.

The National Compensation Act stipulates that the state and public organizations are liable for compensation only when a public official causes damage by violating laws intentionally or negligently while performing their duties.

Mr. A and others claimed damages against the state, alleging illegal acts during the investigation and trial under the Emergency Measures, but after the Supreme Court dismissed their claim in October 2014, they filed a constitutional complaint.

At that time, the Supreme Court judged that the acts of public officials, including the investigative agency's duty of arresting and detaining suspects without a warrant and conducting investigations under the Emergency Measures, as well as the judicial acts of judges who applied the Emergency Measures to deliver guilty verdicts, could hardly be considered illegal acts caused by intentional or negligent misconduct of public officials.

The Constitutional Court also maintained its past decision that "it is difficult to see the provision requiring intentional or negligent misconduct of public officials as a prerequisite for the establishment of the right to claim state compensation as infringing on the right to claim state compensation."

In a previous constitutional complaint case regarding the same provision in 2015, the Constitutional Court had judged that "although recognizing state compensation without intentional or negligent misconduct of public officials could expand victim relief, it could practically hinder smooth public service performance, so there is a need to consider this from a legislative policy perspective."

In this case as well, the Constitutional Court judged that "if state liability for damages is recognized after the fact for law enforcement acts carried out in the past, it could lead the state to avoid law enforcement acts themselves, resulting in passive administration or administrative confusion, which may cause the state's functions to fail to operate normally."

It added, "Not all damages caused by state actions must be remedied by this provision," and "If there is a need for the state to provide broader compensation regardless of the intentional or negligent misconduct of public officials, this should be addressed through separate legislation based on national consensus."

On the other hand, Justices Kim Ki-young, Moon Hyung-bae, and Lee Mi-seon dissented, stating that "if the legal provisions related to the right to claim state compensation are excessively unreasonable, making it difficult or practically impossible to claim state compensation, this violates the Constitution."

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