An activist whose passport was invalidated after attempting to enter the Gaza Strip in Palestine filed a lawsuit to cancel the passport return order but lost. The court found that the reasons for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue the passport return order were valid.
The Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 12 on the 27th ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Kim Ah-hyeon, 28, who goes by the activist name "Haecho," seeking to cancel the passport return order issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Kim boarded an aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip in September last year. The flotilla was seized by the Israeli navy in October of the same year, and Kim was detained and then deported and returned home.
In a media interview in January this year, Kim disclosed plans to "head to the Gaza Strip again in the spring." After that, in March, Kim departed for France with the aim of joining an aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed Kim's departure for France and on Mar. 25 ordered, "Return the passport within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice." If a person who has received a passport return order fails to return it without justifiable reason, the passport becomes invalid.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs determined that Kim had come to fall under "a person who, if traveling abroad, is at high risk of threats to life or physical safety due to terrorism, in a case that is likely to cause serious harm to the security, maintenance of order, or unification/foreign policy of the Republic of Korea," and took this measure under the Passport Act.
In May, Kim boarded an aid flotilla in Syracuse, Italy, and moved to Türkiye. While sailing toward the Gaza Strip, Kim was arrested by the Israeli military on the 20th of the same month and was deported and returned home via Thailand.
Kim argued that there was a procedural flaw because the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not provide prior notice or hear opinions before issuing the passport return order. Kim also argued that issuing a passport return order to someone who has already departed cannot be allowed.
The bench noted, "It was clearly foreseeable that the plaintiff had already departed for France and would attempt to sail to the Gaza Strip in the near future," adding, "Due to Israeli airstrikes and control of sea routes, there was a very high risk of serious harm to the plaintiff's life and body." It went on to find that "an exception exists because 'there is an urgent need to take disposition for public safety or welfare,'" allowing the omission of prior notice and hearing of opinions.
The bench also recognized the grounds for the passport return order, finding that Kim fell under "a person who, if traveling abroad, is at high risk of threats to life or physical safety due to terrorism," and "a case likely to cause serious harm to the security, maintenance of order, or foreign policy of the Republic of Korea." It further rejected Kim's claim, noting that the Passport Act does not set "being a day before departure at the time of a passport return order" as a requirement.
The bench said, "The plaintiff's humanitarian beliefs and freedom of action should be respected," but also found that "the Ministry of Foreign Affairs determined there were no other protective means available and issued the passport return order."
Immediately after the ruling, Kim held a press conference in front of the Administrative Court building and said, "I don't understand. What is this thing called safety that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the bench, and the Korean government are talking about?"