The Constitutional Court is expected to announce its first preliminary screening results on judicial appeal cases as early as this week. As the importance of preliminary screening grows to reduce the workload from the surge in judicial appeals, efforts to establish a cooperation framework between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court are also expected to accelerate.
According to legal circles on the 22nd, a designated panel of three Constitutional Court justices plans to hold deliberations early this week to decide whether to refer judicial appeal cases to full review or dismiss them. A Constitutional Court official said, "A decision is expected to come out early this week."
When a case is filed, the Constitutional Court first has its designated panel examine whether the petition meets legal requirements. If the petition is deemed inadmissible, it is dismissed without a merits review. Under the Constitutional Court Act, if a dismissal decision is not issued within 30 days of filing, the case is automatically considered referred to full adjudication. Grounds for dismissal include cases where the petitioner has not exhausted all other remedies, where the 30-day filing period from the date of final judgment has expired, or where the claim clearly does not fall under eligible grounds.
A total of 118 cases were filed between the system's launch on the 12th of this month and the 19th. The first case involves Mohammed, a Syrian national who was forcibly deported after residing in Korea for about 11 years fleeing civil war. However, observers note the case may be dismissed at the preliminary screening stage because approximately two months passed between the Supreme Court's final ruling and the filing.
The second filed case—a suit by the bereaved family of a fisherman who was abducted to North Korea and later returned, seeking to overturn the rejection of their state compensation claim for delayed criminal compensation—may also face dismissal for not exhausting all other remedies after losing in both lower courts without filing a final appeal. Additionally, Jang Young-ha, chairman of the People Power Party's Seongnam Sujeong-gu chapter who was convicted of spreading false information about President Lee Jae-myung, and YouTuber Gujeyeok, who received a prison sentence for extorting tens of millions of won from fellow YouTuber Tzuyang, have also filed judicial appeals.
Inside and outside the Constitutional Court, preliminary screening is viewed as the key procedure that will determine the success or failure of the system in reducing the caseload burden from the introduction of judicial appeals. Before the system's implementation, the Constitutional Court projected at a briefing that approximately 10,000 to 15,000 judicial appeal cases could be filed annually. Legal circles also believe that the criteria and proportion of cases filtered out at the preliminary screening stage will be crucial for the system's successful establishment.
Attorney Kim Jin-han, a former Constitutional Court researcher, emphasized the need for a meticulous preliminary screening system design at an internal briefing on judicial appeals and preliminary screening on the 20th, saying, "If we take the wrong path now, it could drive the Constitutional Court off a cliff." Consultations between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court regarding practical procedures for judicial appeals are also expected to begin in earnest soon.
