Constitutional Court: Gyeonggi-do's Request for Data Submission from Namyangju City Violates 'Local Autonomy Rights'

Majority Opinion "Request for Data Submission Exceeds Routine Supervisory Authority in Purpose and Scope"
Minority Opinion "Not a Significant Restriction on Autonomy... Exercise of Legitimate Right to Receive Reports"

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok of the Constitutional Court (center) and other justices entered the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 31st and took their seats.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Constitutional Court has ruled that Gyeonggi Province's notification to Namyangju City regarding a comprehensive audit plan and its demand for materials related to autonomous affairs infringes upon Namyangju City's constitutionally granted 'local autonomy rights.'

On the 31st, the Constitutional Court delivered a decision with a 5 to 4 majority in a jurisdictional dispute case filed by Namyangju City against Gyeonggi Province, ruling that the local autonomy rights of Namyangju City were violated.

In April last year, Gyeonggi Province notified Namyangju City of a comprehensive audit plan covering all work processes since July 19, 2017, and requested the submission of related materials. At that time, the governor of Gyeonggi Province was Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea.

In response, Namyangju City claimed that Gyeonggi Province's audit infringed upon the local autonomy rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Local Autonomy Act, and filed a jurisdictional dispute petition on May 6 of last year.

At that time, Gyeonggi Province and Namyangju City had conflicts over the issue of distributing disaster relief funds as local currency due to the COVID-19 crisis. Gyeonggi Province recommended through a chatroom for mayors and county heads in 2020 that disaster relief funds be distributed as local currency, but Namyangju City decided to distribute cash. Subsequently, Namyangju City was excluded from the allocation of 7 billion KRW in special adjustment grants.

The Constitutional Court stated, "The demand for material submission exceeds the scope of routine supervisory authority exercised by the supervisory agency in terms of its purpose and range," and judged that "to guarantee the autonomy of local governments, audits on autonomous affairs should be limited to legality audits, and requesting such materials under the pretext of preliminary investigation materials does not change their nature."

On the other hand, Justices Yoo Nam-seok, Lee Seok-tae, Lee Eun-ae, and Kim Ki-young dissented, stating, "The demand for material submission falls within the necessary scope for the respondent to determine whether to initiate a preliminary investigation of autonomous affairs, and it is difficult to see that the claimant's autonomy rights were significantly restricted thereby; thus, it corresponds to a lawful exercise of the right to receive reports in accordance with the principle of proportionality."

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