A man who was denied external treatment to purchase tinted lenses while incarcerated has filed a lawsuit to cancel the dismissal, but the court dismissed the case. Dismissal occurs when the requirements for a lawsuit are not met, ending the trial without a hearing. The court noted, "The plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking cancellation as he is already released as a former inmate."
According to the legal community on the 6th, the Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 4 (Chief Judge Kim Jeong-jung) stated on Jan. 17 that it "dismisses all claims in this case" in the lawsuit filed by Mr. A against the Minister of Justice and the Warden of Andong Prison regarding the cancellation of claims for external hospital treatment and rejection of eyeglass lenses.
Mr. A, who was sentenced to three years in prison for fraud, filed a request for external medical treatment to purchase tinted lenses from the warden of Andong Prison on Feb. 1 of last year. Tinted lenses are specially coated lenses designed to be comfortably worn indoors and outdoors. However, the doctor working at Andong Prison at the time determined after examining Mr. A that "an eye exam for simple tinted lenses is impossible without ocular symptoms," and the warden did not grant Mr. A's request for external treatment.
In response, Mr. A filed an administrative lawsuit the same month, claiming that the warden of Andong Prison had abused his discretion. He also filed a lawsuit against the Minister of Justice to confirm that the provision in the department's guidelines, which states that "eyeglass lenses should be clear plastic material," is unconstitutional and invalid.
On Nov. 13 of last year, the administrative court stated to Mr. A, who completed his sentence and was released, that "the effect of the denial of external treatment has already expired, and thus there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of that decision," adding that "this claim is improper."
Furthermore, it stated, "The plaintiff only requested permission to receive treatment from an external doctor at the time of the request, and there is no fact that he requested permission to purchase tinted lenses at his own expense," stating that "the warden's denial of the external treatment cannot be considered as also denying the purchase of tinted lenses."
Regarding the lawsuit filed against the Minister of Justice, it stated, "The provisions of the management guidelines for retained property are general and abstract regulations and cannot directly cause specific rights, obligations, or legal relations of the detainee to change without an execution act such as permission or denial by the head of the correctional facility, thus cannot be the subject of the lawsuit." This is because for the administrative action to be the subject of a lawsuit, it must directly relate to the rights and obligations of the public.