Gyeonggi Province Conducted 'Namyangju City Special Investigation'... Constitutional Court Rules "Partial Infringement of Local Autonomy Rights"

Constitutional Court: "Comprehensive audits conducted without specific targets violate the Local Autonomy Act"

The Constitutional Court has ruled that metropolitan governments such as cities and provinces should not conduct audits to the extent of infringing on the local autonomy of subordinate cities, counties, and districts.

On the 28th, the Constitutional Court decided that a significant portion of the special investigations notified by Gyeonggi-do to Namyangju City in 2020 infringed on local autonomy.

On the 23rd, Yoo Nam-seok, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, is seated with the Constitutional Court justices at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

In November 2020, Gyeonggi-do notified the commencement of a special investigation regarding various allegations of preferential treatment related to Namyangju City. In response, Namyangju City filed a constitutional dispute petition, arguing that "the investigation notified by Gyeonggi-do was an abstract and comprehensive audit that did not specify any illegal matters, thus lacking the requirements to commence an audit and infringing on local autonomy."

The Constitutional Court unanimously ruled that 6 out of the 14 special investigations initiated by Gyeonggi-do were illegal audits violating the Local Autonomy Act.

The audit items deemed illegal by the Constitutional Court included ▲comment operations by the city hall public relations team ▲unfair hiring of smoking cessation instructors ▲issues related to the exercise of personnel authority ▲correction of press releases ▲matters concerning the Eco Land baseball stadium ▲and other media reports and on-site tips.

The Constitutional Court recognized that these 6 cases infringed on Namyangju City's local autonomy and stated, "The audit targets were either unspecified or lacked relevance to the initially specified audit targets, failing to meet the requirements for commencing an audit," adding, "These constitute illegal audits such as comprehensive and preemptive general audits, audits initiated without specifying illegal matters, and audits aimed at detecting violations of laws."

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court judged the remaining 8 cases as lawful audits and sided with Gyeonggi-do. These items included ▲allegations of preferential treatment in the Yangjeong Station area development project ▲unfair selection of business operators for the art club competition ▲violations of COVID-19 quarantine guidelines ▲appropriateness of budget decisions by the city administration coordination committee ▲the second amendment to the 2021 metropolitan area development restriction zone management plan ▲restoration projects for damaged areas in three zones including Saneung-ri, Jingeon-eup, Namyangju City ▲allegations of preferential treatment in the purchase of public property ▲and appropriateness of building permit (changes) in Wolmun-ri, Wabu-eup.

Regarding the 8 cases that met the audit commencement requirements, the Constitutional Court stated, "When a metropolitan government initiates an audit of the autonomous affairs of a subordinate basic local government, it must specify the audit target, but there is no need to notify the specified audit target in advance," and judged, "These 8 cases specified the audit targets at the start of the audit and confirmed the presence of legal violations to the extent necessary for commencing the audit, thus meeting the requirements for audit commencement."

This Constitutional Court decision came 2 years and 3 months after Gyeonggi-do and Namyangju City clashed over the special investigations. At that time, Gyeonggi-do halted the audits after Namyangju City strongly opposed the special investigations and filed constitutional dispute petitions.

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