'Infringement of National Political Participation Rights' National Election Commission Ahead of National Assembly's Institutional Report [Gwacheon=Yonhap News]

A court has overturned disciplinary action taken against an employee of the National Election Commission (NEC), who had received a reprimand due to hiring irregularities revealed by an audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI).

The court's decision was based on the fact that the NEC, despite being an independent constitutional body and having its claim for a dispute over the BAI's audit authority accepted by the Constitutional Court, proceeded to impose disciplinary action relying solely on the BAI's findings without conducting its own investigation.

According to legal sources on the 22nd, the Seoul Administrative Court's Division 3 for Administrative Affairs (Presiding Judge Ho Sung-ho) ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the 22nd of last month in a lawsuit filed by NEC employee A against the Secretary-General of the NEC to nullify the reprimand.

The BAI launched an audit of the NEC in September 2023 after media reports raised suspicions of preferential hiring of children of high-ranking NEC officials.

Subsequently, on February 25th of last year, the final audit results revealed that in the 2021 competitive recruitment process, employee A had unlawfully hired two candidates who did not meet the eligibility criteria, applying regulations different from those stated in the job announcement.

The BAI requested that the NEC take disciplinary action of at least a minor disciplinary offense against employee A.

In response, the NEC deliberated on A's disciplinary action in March of the same year and issued a reprimand in April.

However, A filed an administrative lawsuit, arguing that the disciplinary action was decided in March 2025, which exceeded the three-year statute of limitations for a matter that occurred in October 2021.

Under the State Public Officials Act, the statute of limitations for disciplinary action against public officials is three years for offenses other than sexual offenses. However, the statute of limitations is suspended if the BAI issues a notice of commencement of investigation.

The court ruled that in this case, the BAI's audit itself was unlawful, and therefore the notice of commencement of investigation could not be considered a cause for suspension of the statute of limitations.

The court cited the fact that the NEC had filed a dispute over authority with the Constitutional Court questioning the BAI's audit, and the Constitutional Court accepted it on February 27th of last year, two days after the BAI's final announcement.

At that time, the Constitutional Court ruled that "the NEC has the authority to independently perform various duties, including personnel matters related to election affairs, without undue interference from external bodies such as the executive branch," and "the BAI cannot be considered to have been granted the authority for supervisory audits of the NEC."

Based on this, the court pointed out, "The Constitutional Court clearly stated that the authority for supervisory audits of the NEC is not recognized."

It further stated, "This audit cannot be considered an audit based on legitimate authority granted by the Constitution and laws, and therefore the notice of commencement of investigation cannot be considered to have the effect of prohibiting the continuation of disciplinary proceedings."

Based on this, the court determined that the three-year statute of limitations for disciplinary action against A had already expired.

The court explained, "The NEC had originally planned to conduct its own special audit regarding allegations of corruption, such as preferential hiring, but by agreeing to accept the audit, it did not proceed with separate audit or disciplinary procedures. Regarding employee A, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated until the BAI's final audit results were announced and disciplinary action was requested on February 25, 2025."

The court did not accept the NEC's argument of a "legal impediment," suggesting that it was uncertain whether the audit constituted the BAI's supervisory audit until the Constitutional Court's decision.

The court pointed out, "The BAI's notice of commencement of investigation does not have the effect of prohibiting the NEC's own disciplinary action and therefore cannot be considered a legal impediment."

It added, "Given that the NEC stated its intention to accept the BAI's audit in 2023, it would have been practically difficult to proceed with its own disciplinary procedures for employee A despite the notice of commencement of investigation. However, there is no justifiable reason that warrants the exclusion of the disciplinary statute of limitations (3 years), which is stipulated to ensure the stability of public officials' duties and status."

The NEC has appealed the ruling, and the case is currently pending before the Seoul High Court.