The Limits of the Binding Force of Judgments : Focusing on the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem in Local Councils

The expulsion of a member of a local council constitutes a severe sanction that deprives an elected official of his or her representative status and thus directly affects the autonomy and democratic legitimacy of local self-government. When such an expulsion resolution is annulled by a final judicial decision in administrative litigation, the resolution retroactively loses its legal effect by virtue of the binding force of the judgment. However, whether the local council may subsequently adopt a new expulsion resolution concerning the same matter raises a complex legal issue situated at the intersection of the binding force of judicial decisions and the internal parliamentary principle of ne bis in idem (the prohibition of reconsideration of the same matter). This paper departs from the conventional binary approach that frames the issue solely in terms of permissibility or prohibition of re-resolution. Instead, it analyzes the problem by distinguishing the normative functions and scopes of application of the binding force of annulment judgments and the principle of ne bis in idem. To this end, the paper first examines the legal nature of resolutions adopted by local councils and establishes that an expulsion resolution constitutes an administrative disposition subject to judicial review. It then clarifies that the principle of ne bis in idem operates as an internal procedural rule premised on the existence of a lawfully formed and finalized decision. The paper further reviews theories and case law concerning the binding force of annulment judgments under administrative litigation, demonstrating that such binding force does not prohibit the repetition of the same outcome as such, but rather prohibits the repetition of the same unlawful grounds identified by the court. Based on this understanding, the paper argues that, with respect to collegial bodies such as local councils, the binding force of a judgment should not be construed as completely barring the exercise of decision-making authority, but instead as a mechanism to prevent the recurrence of unlawful decision-making structures. Building on this framework, the paper proposes criteria for assessing the legality of a subsequent resolution following an annulment judgment, including whether the unlawful grounds identified in the judgment have been clearly specified, whether those defects have been substantively remedied, and whether the renewed decision-making process reflects procedural and deliberative substance. Through this analysis, the paper seeks to present an interpretive framework that reconciles the binding force of judicial judgments with the internal autonomy of local councils, thereby balancing effective judicial protection with the principles of local self-government. This study contributes to the theoretical clarification of the limits of the binding force of annulment judgments in the context of local council resolutions and provides a systematic basis for reconfiguring the relationship between judicial control and parliamentary autonomy in local governance.