A Study on the Directness Requirement in Constitutional Complaint

Sooin Yun
{"title":"A Study on the Directness Requirement in Constitutional Complaint","authors":"Sooin Yun","doi":"10.21592/eucj.2022.40.371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The directness requirements required in relation to constitutional complaints which are legal norms, are conceptually separate from the exhaustion of other remedies that require prior relief procedures, but in Korea, regulatory control is divided into courts and the Constitutional Court. \nThe conventional Constitutional Court's decision has recognized exceptions to the directness requirement based on whether or not the executive action is discretionary, since the directness of the base law is exceptionally recognized if the execution action is a binding action. However, the Constitutional Court has recently been confused about the criteria and scope of exceptions to directness requirements, such as acknowledging the directness of the grounded law based on expectability, if a specific enforcement act is scheduled, that is, even if it is uniquely stipulated. \nThe directness requirement in the petition is not a prestigious requirement in the Constitution and Constitutional Court Act, but it is a legal requirement to effectively realization the basic rights of the people by separating functional power between the court and the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Constitutional Court should consider the ideology of guaranteeing the basic rights of the people in setting the requirements for recognition of directness, but should present more predictable and clear standards that can harmonize the efficiency of the constitutional trial with the people's right to trial.","PeriodicalId":232789,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Association","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Constitutional Law Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21592/eucj.2022.40.371","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The directness requirements required in relation to constitutional complaints which are legal norms, are conceptually separate from the exhaustion of other remedies that require prior relief procedures, but in Korea, regulatory control is divided into courts and the Constitutional Court. The conventional Constitutional Court's decision has recognized exceptions to the directness requirement based on whether or not the executive action is discretionary, since the directness of the base law is exceptionally recognized if the execution action is a binding action. However, the Constitutional Court has recently been confused about the criteria and scope of exceptions to directness requirements, such as acknowledging the directness of the grounded law based on expectability, if a specific enforcement act is scheduled, that is, even if it is uniquely stipulated. The directness requirement in the petition is not a prestigious requirement in the Constitution and Constitutional Court Act, but it is a legal requirement to effectively realization the basic rights of the people by separating functional power between the court and the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Constitutional Court should consider the ideology of guaranteeing the basic rights of the people in setting the requirements for recognition of directness, but should present more predictable and clear standards that can harmonize the efficiency of the constitutional trial with the people's right to trial.
论宪法申诉的直观性要件
与宪法申诉有关的直接要求是法律规范,在概念上与需要事先救济程序的其他补救办法的用尽是分开的,但在韩国,管制管制分为法院和宪法法院。传统宪法法院的判决承认了根据执行行为是否具有自由裁量性的直接性要求的例外,因为如果执行行为是具有约束力的行为,则例外地承认了基础法律的直接性。但是,宪法裁判所最近对直接性要求的例外标准和范围感到困惑。宪法裁判所认为,如果制定具体的执行行为,即使是唯一规定,也要以可预期性为基础,承认基础法的直接性。请愿书的直接性要求并不是《宪法》和《宪法法院法》中享有盛权的要求,而是法院和宪法法院分权有效实现国民基本权利的法律要求。因此,宪法裁判所在确定承认直接性的条件时,应考虑到保障国民基本权利的思想,但应提出更具可预见性和明确性的标准,使宪法审判的效率与国民的审判权相协调。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信