Constitutional Court Dismisses Constitutional Complaint Against Seoul City's COVID-19 'Business Hours Restriction' Notice

Constitutional Court: "Administrative Remedies Such as Administrative Appeals and Litigation Must Be Pursued First"

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the Seoul Metropolitan Government's public notice imposing restrictions on business hours or requiring physical distancing between users for restaurant and PC room operators to prevent COVID-19 must first go through relief procedures such as administrative appeals or administrative litigation.

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok of the Constitutional Court and the justices took their seats in the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court on the afternoon of the 25th to deliver a ruling on a constitutional complaint case.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

On the 31st, the Constitutional Court announced a unanimous decision by all justices to dismiss the constitutional complaint case regarding Seoul's "Public Notice on Restrictions on Gatherings at Entertainment Facilities and Restaurants in accordance with Social Distancing Adjustments."

The petitioners, who operate restaurants and PC rooms, filed a constitutional complaint claiming that the Seoul Mayor's public notice, effective from October 12 to December 28, 2020, which ordered restaurants to maintain distance between tables, allowed only takeout and delivery from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., and required PC rooms to suspend operations during the same hours to prevent the spread of COVID-19, infringed on their fundamental rights.

The Constitutional Court determined that Seoul's public notice qualifies as an administrative disposition subject to an appeal lawsuit and that there is standing to seek its cancellation; however, it ruled that relief procedures such as administrative appeals or administrative litigation must be pursued first.

The Court stated, "Seoul's public notice imposes obligations on restaurant and PC room managers and operators to comply with certain quarantine rules, and it was issued with the intent to impose an administrative disposition," adding, "The Supreme Court has also ruled on a similar Seoul public notice restricting in-person worship services, which contains the same provisions as the notice under review, recognizing it as an administrative disposition subject to an appeal lawsuit."

Furthermore, the Court noted, "Although the effective period of the public notice has expired and its effect has ceased, making restoration impossible even if it is canceled, there is a possibility that identical or similar quarantine measures will be repeatedly implemented in the future, and legal clarification is necessary. Therefore, this case falls under an exception where standing to seek cancellation of the disposition is recognized," but concluded, "Filing a constitutional complaint seeking cancellation without first going through relief procedures such as administrative litigation fails to meet the subsidiarity requirement and is thus inadmissible."

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