2011Hun-Ma778 Verification of unconstitutionality of exemption from obligation to report political party activities

Freeboard ○

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of the case;

Unlike an outdoor assembly or demonstration by ordinary people, the claimant filed a petition for adjudication on constitutional complaint of this case with the purport that the exclusion from the subject matter of a political party’s speech meeting infringes the claimant’s right to equality. On December 1, 2011, Article 37(1) of the Political Parties Act (amended by Act No. 7683, Aug. 4, 2005) (hereinafter “instant Political Parties Act provisions”) and Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (amended by Act No. 8424, May 11, 2007) (hereinafter “instant provisions”).

2. Determination

A. Request for a trial on Article 1 of the Political Parties Act

Article 68(1) of the Constitutional Court Act provides that an adjudication on constitutional complaint under Article 68(1) shall be filed only in cases where his basic right is directly infringed upon due to the exercise or non-exercise of public authority (see Constitutional Court Decision 92HunMa61, Jun. 30, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 6-1, 680, 684, Jun. 30, 199). The provisions of the Political Parties Act guarantee the freedom of political party activities, which does not include any restriction on the right of a claimant or any duty imposed on the general public, and does not include all the contents that restrict the right of the general public or impose any inconvenience or inconvenience in traffic in the party speech circuits protected by the provisions of the Political Parties Act. Thus, the provision of the Political Parties Act does not constitute a violation of the

B. Request for a trial on Article 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

Article 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides for the obligation to report the assembly and demonstration, and the appellant filed a petition for adjudication to seek adjudication to confirm the unconstitutionality of Article 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which provides for the request for dissolution of an unreported assembly and dispersion order by the head of the competent police authority on June 20, 201, but rejected the petition (see Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ma33, August 11, 201). Accordingly, on June 20, 2011, he/she was aware that at least 90 days have elapsed since the instant provision of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides for the adjudication, and the request period for adjudication against the instant provision of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which was made on December 1, 2011, is excessive.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal of this case is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

December 20, 2011

Justices Park Jong-chul, Justice

Justices Park Jong-chul

Justices Song Du-hwan