2013.04.16

2012 (Gyo-Hi) 245

Minshu Vol. 67, No. 4

Judgment concerning the method of making a review and determination in a suit to seek revocation of a disposition rejecting a claim for certification as a Minamata disease patient under Article 4, paragraph (2) of the Act on Compensation, etc. of Pollution-related Health Damage

Case to seek revocation of the disposition rejecting the claim for certification as a Minamata disease patient

Judgment of the Third Petty Bench, quashed and remanded

Osaka High Court, Judgment of April 12, 2012

A judicial review and determination in a suit to seek revocation of a disposition rejecting a claim for certification as a Minamata disease patient under Article 4, paragraph (2) of the Act on Compensation, etc. of Pollution-related Health Damage should not be made through the approach explained in the judgment in prior instance, that is, from the perspective of whether or not there is something unreasonable, in light of the latest level of medicine, with the 1977 Standards for Determination, which were applied by the administrative agency concerned when making its determination, or whether or not there was any error or omission that must not be overlooked in the process of research, deliberation or determination conducted by the Council for Certification of Pollution-related Health Damage and therefore there was something unreasonable with the determination made by the administrative agency concerned on the basis of the Council's determination; rather, said judicial review and determination should be made through the approach wherein the court makes a comprehensive examination of the circumstances concerned and the relevant evidence on a case-by-case basis and in light of the rule of thumb, and reviews matters such as whether or not there is any individual causal relationship between individual specific symptoms and the causative substance, thereby making an individual and specific determination as to whether or not the claimant is afflicted with Minamata disease.

Article 2, paragraphs (1) through (3), and Article 4, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Act on Compensation, etc. of Pollution-related Health Damage, Article 1 and Appended Table 2, row (4) of the Order for Enforcement of the Act on Compensation, etc. of Pollution-related Health Damage

Act on Compensation, etc. of Pollution-related Health Damage
(Designation of Areas and Diseases)
Article 2
(1) The term "Class 1 Area" as used in this Act means an area designated by Cabinet Order as an area where serious air pollution has occurred extensively due to a business activity or any other human activity, and there has been a high incidence of a disease caused by the influence of such pollution (excluding the diseases prescribed in the following paragraph).
(2) The term "Class 2 Area" as used in this Act means an area designated by Cabinet Order as an area where serious air pollution or water contamination has occurred extensively due to a business activity or any other human activity, and there has been a high incidence of a disease whose relationship with the causative substance of said air pollution or water contamination is generally clear and which is contracted only from such substance.
(3) The Cabinet Order set forth in the preceding two paragraphs shall also specify the diseases set forth in the respective paragraphs.

(Certification, etc.)
Article 4
(1) The prefectural governor who has jurisdiction over the whole or part of a Class 1 Area shall, upon the claim of a person who is found to be affiliated with a disease specified for said Class 1 Area under Article 2, paragraph (3) and who falls under any of the following items, issue certification to the effect that said disease has been caused by the influence of the air pollution in said Class 1 Area. In this case, the prefectural governor shall hear opinions from the Council for Certification of Pollution-related Health Damage as to whether or not the claimant can be found to be afflicted with said disease:
(i) a person who has domicile in the Class 1 Area in question at the time of the claim, where the period during which the person continued to have domicile in the Class 1 Area in question until the time of the claim (including the period during which the person had domicile in any other Class 1 Area designated under Article 2, paragraph (3) for the same disease as the disease specified for the Class 1 Area in question under said paragraph; hereinafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) is equal to or longer than the period specified by Cabinet Order according to the type of disease, or a person who has domicile in the Class 1 Area in question at the time of the claim, where the period during which the person continued to have domicile in the Class 1 Area in question until the time of the claim within the period specified by Cabinet Order according to the type of disease is equal to or longer than the period specified by Cabinet Order according to the type of disease;
(ii) a person who normally spends hours of the day beyond the number of hours designated by Cabinet Order (hereinafter referred to as the "designated number of hours" in this Article) in the Class 1 Area in question at the time of the claim, where the period during which the person continued to spend hours of the day beyond the designated number of hours in the Class 1 Area in question until the time of the claim (including the period during which the person normally spent hours of the day beyond the designated number of hours in any other Class 1 Area designated under Article 2, paragraph (3) for the same disease as the disease specified for the Class 1 Area in question under said paragraph; hereinafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) is equal to or longer than the period specified by Cabinet Order according to the type of disease, or a person who normally spends hours of the day beyond the designated number of hours in the Class 1 Area in question, where the period during which the person continued to normally spend hours of the day beyond the designated number of hours in the Class 1 Area in question until the time of the claim within the period specified by Cabinet Order according to the type of disease is equal to or longer than the period specified by Cabinet Order according to the type of disease; and
(iii) except for the persons who fall under the preceding two items, a person who has domicile in the Class 1 Area in question at the time of the claim or normally spends hours of the day beyond the designated number of hours in the Class 1 Area in question, where the total of the period during which the person continued to have domicile in the Class 1 Area in question and the period during which the person continued to normally spend hours of the day beyond the designated number of hours in the Class 1 Area in question is equal to or longer than the period calculated according to the type of disease, as provided by Cabinet Order.
(2) The prefectural governor who has jurisdiction over the whole or part of a Class 2 Area shall, upon the claim of a person who is found to be afflicted with a disease specified for said Class 2 Area under Article 2, paragraph (3), issue certification to the effect that said disease has been caused by the influence of the air pollution or water contamination in said Class 2 Area. The provisions of the second sentence of the preceding paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case referred to in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Order for Enforcement of the Act on Compensation, etc. of Pollution-related Health Damage (Cabinet Order No. 295 of August 20, 1974)
(Designation of Class 2 Areas and Diseases)
Article 1
The areas specified by Cabinet Order as set forth in Article 2, paragraph (2) of the Act on Compensation, etc. of Pollution-related Health Damage (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the diseases prescribed in said paragraph shall be as prescribed in Appended Table 2.

Appended Table 2 (Re: Article 1)
(4) Areas of Minamata City and Ashikita-gun in Kumamoto Prefecture, and the area of Izumi City in Kagoshima Prefecture: Minamata disease

The judgment in prior instance is quashed.
The case is remanded to the Osaka High Court.

I. Outline of the case
1. On September 30, 1978, late X (died in March 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "Claimant") filed with the governor of Kumamoto Prefecture a claim for certification as a Minamata disease patient under Article 4, paragraph (2) of the Act on Compensation, etc. of Pollution-related Health Damage (Act No. 111 of 1973; the title of this Act was changed by Act No. 97 of 1987; hereinafter referred to as the "Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act" irrespective of before or after the change of the title) (this claim shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Claim for Certification"). On May 2, 1980, the governor made a disposition to reject the Claim for Certification (hereinafter referred to as the "Disposition").
In this case, the appellant of final appeal, who is a child of the Claimant, against the appellee of final appeal, seeks revocation of the Disposition and also seeks a mandamus ordering the governor of Kumamoto Prefecture to make a decision to the effect that the Claimant was eligible to be awarded certification under Article 5 and Article 4, paragraph (2) of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act to the effect that the disease with which the Claimant was afflicted was Minamata disease, which was caused by the influence of the water contamination in the areas of Minamata City and Ashikita-gun.

2. The outline of the facts determined by the court of prior instance is as follows.
(1) Situation before the enactment of the laws and regulations concerning relief measures
A. In the areas surrounding Minamata Bay, patients suffering central nervous system diseases of unknown cause had been observed sporadically since around 1953. On May 1, 1956, a physician of the hospital attached to the Minamata Plant of Chisso Corporation (formerly Shin Nihon Chisso Hiryo Kabushiki Kaisha; hereinafter referred to as "Chisso") made a report to the Minamata Health Center about the high incidence of central nervous system diseases of unknown cause. Following this, one of these diseases was publicly recognized as a distinctive disease and later called Minamata disease.
B. Chisso started to produce acetaldehyde?a substance which generates methylmercury compounds (hereinafter referred to as "methylmercury"), a type of organic mercury compounds (hereinafter referred to as "organic mercury"), during the production process?at its Minamata Plant from around 1932, and increased its production from around 1949. Initially, wastewater from the acetaldehyde production facility in said plant had been discharged to Hyakken Port within Minamata Bay, but in September 1958, the point of discharge of wastewater was moved to a place around the mouth of the Minamata River outside Minamata Bay. From around 1959, patients suffering from the abovementioned distinctive disease were observed not only among residents in the coastal areas around Minamata Bay but also among residents in the areas around the mouth of the Minamata River, located to the northeast of the bay.
In May 1968, Chisso discontinued the production of acetaldehyde at the Minamata Plant, and this put an end to the discharge of wastewater contaminated with methylmercury from said plant.
C. In September 1968, the government published its official view that the distinctive disease mentioned in A. above had been caused by methylmercury generated at the acetaldehyde production facility in the Chisso Minamata Plant and discharged in the wastewater from said plant.
D. Thus, the abovementioned distinctive disease has been defined as a disease caused through the mechanism wherein methylmercury, generated at the acetaldehyde production facility in the Chisso Minamata Plant and discharged in the wastewater from said plant into Minamata Bay and the vicinity of the mouth of the Minamata River, and then accumulated in fish and shellfish, is taken into the bodies of people who consumed a large quantity of such fish and shellfish and then accumulated in their cerebrum, cerebellum, etc., thereby finally damaging their nervous system cells. To date, sensory disturbance, ataxia, concentric contraction of the visual field, hearing impairment, speech impairment, etc. have been detected as the major symptoms of this disease.
(2) Provisions of the related laws and regulations concerning relief measures
A. The Act on Special Measures Concerning Relief for Pollution-related Health Damage enacted in 1969 (Act No. 90 of 1969; repealed by Act No. 111 of 1973; hereinafter referred to as the "Relief Act") advocated it as its purpose to provide relief for health damage to persons who have been afflicted with diseases caused by the influence of serious air pollution or water contamination occurring extensively due to a business activity or any other human activity (Article 1). Article 2, paragraph (1) of this Act provided that the term "designated area" as used in said Act means an area designated by Cabinet Order where serious air pollution or water contamination has occurred extensively due to a business activity or any other human activity, and there has been a high incidence of a disease caused by the influence of such pollution. Paragraph (2) of said Article provided that the Cabinet Order set forth in the preceding paragraph shall also specify the diseases set forth in said paragraph.
Article 3 of the Relief Act provided that the prefectural governor who has jurisdiction over the whole or part of a designated area shall, upon the claim of a person who is afflicted with a disease specified for said designated area under paragraph (2) of the preceding Article, issue certification to the effect that said disease with which the person is afflicted has been caused by the influence of the air pollution or water contamination in said designated area, while hearing opinions from the Council for Certification of Pollution Victims.
Under the Order for Enforcement of the Act on Special Measures Concerning Relief for Pollution-related Health Damage enacted in relation to the Relief Act (Cabinet Order No. 319 of 1969; hereinafter referred to as the "Relief Act Enforcement Order"), Article 1 and the appended table indicated "the areas of Minamata City and Ashikita-gun in Kumamoto Prefecture, and the area of Izumi City in Kagoshima Prefecture" as the areas specified by Cabinet Order as set forth in Article 2, paragraph (1) of said Act, and specified "Minamata disease" as the disease prescribed in said paragraph. "Minamata disease" was indicated in the appended table of the Relief Act Enforcement Order against the following background. In August 1969, a review committee on the designation of pollution-induced diseases was set up by the Japan Public Health Association as a research body commissioned by the Ministry of Health and chaired by SASSA Kanshi (hereinafter referred to as the "Sassa Committee"), and as a result of the committee's review aimed at serving for the establishment and smooth implementation of a relief scheme for victims suffering pollution-related health damage, and focusing on matters such as the names of the diseases to be covered by the relief scheme and the secondary disease test items, the committee compiled opinions such as that it would be appropriate to use the name "Minamata disease" in the Cabinet Order to refer to the organic mercury disease and to define this disease as a "nervous system disease caused by oral intake of organic mercury accumulated in fish and shellfish." Based on such opinions presented by the Sassa Committee, "Minamata disease" was prescribed in the appended table of the Relief Act Enforcement Order.
B. The Relief Act was repealed when the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act enacted in 1973 came into effect in the following year (Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act), and the relief measures available under the Relief Act were changed over to the relief measures under the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act as follows, while maintaining the continuity from the former law.
The purpose of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act is to promote prompt and fair protection and ensure the health of victims suffering health damage caused by the influence of serious air pollution or water contamination occurring extensively due to a business activity or any other human activity (Article 1). Article 2, paragraph (1) of said Act provides that the term "Class 1 Area" as used in this Act means an area designated by Cabinet Order as an area where serious air pollution has occurred extensively due to a business activity or any other human activity, and there has been a high incidence of a disease caused by the influence of such pollution (excluding the diseases prescribed in the following paragraph), paragraph (2) of said Article provides that the term "Class 2 Area" as used in this Act means an area designated by Cabinet Order as an area where serious air pollution or water contamination has occurred extensively due to a business activity or any other human activity, and there has been a high incidence of a disease whose relationship with the causative substance of said air pollution or water contamination is generally clear and which is contracted only from such substance, and paragraph (3) of said Article provides that the Cabinet Order set forth in the preceding two paragraphs shall also specify the diseases set forth in the respective paragraphs. Article 1 and Appended Table 2 of the Order for Enforcement of the Act on Compensation, etc. of Pollution-related Health Damage (Cabinet Order No. 295 of 1974; the title of this Cabinet Order was changed by Cabinet Order No. 368 of 1987; hereinafter referred to as the "Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act Enforcement Order" irrespective of before or after the change of the title) indicates "the areas of Minamata City and Ashikita-gun in Kumamoto Prefecture, and the area of Izumi City in Kagoshima Prefecture" as the areas specified by Cabinet Order as set forth in Article 2, paragraph (2) of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, and specifies "Minamata disease" as the disease prescribed in said paragraph.
Article 4, paragraph (1) of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act provides that the prefectural governor who has jurisdiction over the whole or part of a Class 1 Area shall, upon the claim of a person who is found to be afflicted with a disease specified for said Class 1 Area under Article 2, paragraph (3) of said Act and who falls under any of the cases set forth in Article 4, paragraph (1), items (i) through (iii) of said Act?for example, the person has domicile in the Class 1 Area in question at the time of the claim, where the period during which the person continued to have domicile in the Class 1 Area in question until the time of the claim is equal to or longer than the prescribed period?, issue certification to the effect that said disease has been caused by the influence of the air pollution in said Class 1 Area, and in this case, the prefectural governor shall hear opinions from the Council for Certification of Pollution-related Health Damage as to whether or not the claimant can be found to be afflicted with said disease.
Article 4, paragraph (2) of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act provides that the prefectural governor who has jurisdiction over the whole or part of a Class 2 Area shall, upon the claim of a person who is found to be afflicted with a disease specified for said Class 2 Area under Article 2, paragraph (3), issue certification to the effect that said disease has been caused by the influence of the air pollution or water contamination in said Class 2 Area, and in this case as well, the prefectural governor shall hear opinions from the Council for Certification of Pollution-related Health Damage as to whether or not the claimant can be found to be afflicted with said disease.
Article 3 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act provides that a person who has been certified under Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Relief Act before the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act comes into effect shall be deemed to be a person certified under the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, as provided by Cabinet Order. Furthermore, Article 4, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Supplementary Provisions of said Act provides that a person who has filed a claim for certification under Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Relief Act before the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act comes into effect may be awarded certification as claimed pursuant to the provisions then in force, and the person thus certified shall be deemed to be a person certified under the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, as provided by Cabinet Order.
C. With regard to the operational guidelines for the competent administrative agencies in issuing to a claimant certification as a Minamata disease patient under the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act and the Enforcement Order thereof, as well as the Relief Act and the Enforcement Order thereof (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, etc."), the following notices were issued: (i) the notice issued on August 7, 1971, to the prefectural governors and mayors of the Cabinet Order-designated cities concerned to indicate the matters to note upon issuing certification, titled "Certification under the Act on Special Measures Concerning Relief for Pollution-related Health Damage" (Notice Kan-Ki-Ho No. 7 of 1971, issued by the Administrative Vice Minister of the Environment Agency; hereinafter referred to as the "1971 Administrative Vice Minister Notice"); (ii) the notice issued on July 1, 1977, to the prefectural governors and mayors of the Cabinet Order-designated cities concerned to present the standards for determining acquired Minamata disease patients, titled "Standards for Determination of Acquired Minamata Disease Patients" (Notice Kan-Ho-Gyo No. 262 of 1977, issued by the Director of the Environmental Health Department, Planning and Coordination Bureau, Environment Agency; hereinafter the standards for determination presented in this notice shall be referred to as the "1977 Standards for Determination"; (iii) and the notice issued on July 3, 1978, to the prefectural governors and mayors of the Cabinet Order-designated cities concerned to sort out and make clear again the matters to note upon issuing certification, titled "Promotion of Administrative Work on Certification as Minamata Disease Patients" (Notice Kan-Ho-Gyo No. 525 of 1978, issued by the Administrative Vice Minister for the Environment; hereinafter referred to as the "1978 Administrative Vice Minister Notice").
The 1977 Standards for Determination stipulate as follows. Symptoms such as sensory disturbance at the ends of the extremities, ataxia, disorder of equilibrium, concentric contraction of the visual field, gait disturbance, articulatory disorder, muscle weakness, trembling, abnormal eye movements, hearing impairment, etc. are generally considered to be non-specific when they occur independently, and it is therefore necessary to make a comprehensive examination on the basis of a high level of scholarly acquisition and a wealth of experience when determining Minamata disease patients. Where a person has been exposed to organic mercury to a certain degree and has a combination of symptoms that falls under any of the following, such person's symptoms would generally be considered to be included in the scope of Minamata disease: (i) having sensory disturbance and showing ataxia; (ii) having sensory disturbance, being suspected of having ataxia, and showing disorder of equilibrium or bilateral concentric contraction of the visual field; (iii) having sensory disturbance, showing bilateral concentric contraction of the visual field, and showing other ophthalmologic or otorhinological symptoms indicating central disorder; or (iv) having sensory disturbance, being suspected of having ataxia, and having a combination of other symptoms, and therefore being determined to be under the influence of organic mercury.
The 1978 Administrative Vice Minister Notice explained that the point of the 1971 Administrative Vice Minister Notice concerning the scope of Minamata disease was to state that where a comprehensive examination has been made on the basis of a high level of scholarly acquisition and a wealth of experience in relation to Minamata disease with regard to all symptoms to be subject to the determination as to whether or not a claimant is afflicted with Minamata disease, and as a result, the claimant is medically determined to be afflicted with Minamata disease with a high probability, the claimant's symptoms would be included in the scope of Minamata disease. The 1978 Administrative Vice Minister Notice also explained that the 1977 Standards for Determination were issued to make that point more specific and clear, and stipulated that in the future, a comprehensive examination as to whether or not a claimant's symptoms are included in the scope of Minamata disease should be made with regard to all of the claimant's symptoms in line with the 1977 Standards for Determination.
(3) Developments up to the filing of this suit, etc.
A. The Claimant had lived in the area around Minamata Bay and consumed fish and shellfish on a daily basis during the period from her birth in 1925 to her moving into Amagasaki City, Hyogo Prefecture in 1971. Around 1972, she started to complain about numbness in her legs and other problems, and on April 27, 1973, she filed with the governor of Kumamoto Prefecture a claim for certification under Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Relief Act (the first claim). On May 21, 1978, the governor made a disposition to reject this claim.
B. On September 30, 1978, the Claimant filed with the governor of Kumamoto Prefecture a claim for certification under Article 4, paragraph (2) of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act (the Claim for Certification).
C. On April 21, 1980, the governor of Kumamoto Prefecture sought opinions from the Kumamoto Prefecture Council for Certification of Pollution-related Health Damage regarding the Claim for Certification pursuant to Article 4, paragraph (2) of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act. On May 1, 1980, the Council submitted a report to the governor, stating that the Claim for Certification should be rejected because it found that the Claimant's symptoms failed to meet the 1977 Standards for Determination and it therefore determined the Claimant not to be afflicted with Minamata disease.
D. Following this report, on May 2, 1980, the governor of Kumamoto Prefecture made a disposition to reject the Claim for Certification, on the grounds that the disease claimed by the Claimant cannot be found to have been caused by her oral intake of organic mercury accumulated in fish or shellfish (the Disposition).
E. Dissatisfied with the Disposition, the Claimant filed an objection and then filed a request for administrative review with the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Appeal Board, which then made an administrative disposition to reject the Claimant's request for administrative review on March 22, 2007.
F. On May 16, 2007, the Claimant filed this suit.
The Claimant had filed with the governor of Kumamoto Prefecture a claim for certification under Article 4, paragraph (2) of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act as of October 11, 1981 (the third claim), which had been rejected by the governor as of March 31, 1998.
G. The Claimant died in March 2013 after the oral argument proceedings in the prior instance were closed, and on March 12, the appellant, a child of the Claimant, filed a claim with the governor of Kumamoto Prefecture under Article 5, paragraph (1) of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act.

II. Concerning the reasons for petition for acceptance of final appeal argued by the appeal counsel, ONODA Satoru, et al. (except for the reasons excluded)
1. Given the facts mentioned above, the court of prior instance dismissed with prejudice on the merits the appellant's claim for revocation of the Disposition, and also dismissed without prejudice the appellant's claim for a mandamus ordering certification under Article 4, paragraph (2) of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act. The holdings of the court of prior instance can be summarized as follows.
A judicial review and determination in the suit to seek revocation of the Disposition should be made from the perspective of whether or not there was something unreasonable with the determination made by the governor of Kumamoto Prefecture on the basis of the medical, scientific and technical research, deliberation and determination conducted by the Kumamoto Prefecture Council for Certification of Pollution-related Health Damage. The governor's determination should be deemed to be unreasonable and the Disposition should therefore be judged to be illegal if, in light of the latest level of medicine, there is something unreasonable with the 1977 Standards for Determination, which were applied as the specific examination standards when conducting the abovementioned research and deliberation, or there was any error or omission that must not be overlooked in the process of research, deliberation or determination conducted by said Council, in which the Council concluded that the Claim for Certification failed to meet the 1977 Standards for Determination, and it is found that the governor's determination was made on the basis of said Council's determination.
The approach for making a determination according to the 1977 Standards for Determination is to, in the process of assessing the influence of methylmercury, first conduct a symptom cluster test by reference to the combinations of the major symptoms made on the basis of the latest medical, scientific and technical information available at that time, and then make a comprehensive examination targeting cases not included in these combinations. Thus, the approach according to said standards is sufficiently reasonable. Among the symptoms observed with Minamata disease, the Claimant did not show symptoms other than sensory disturbance observed mainly at the ends of the extremities, which means that she did not show any of the combinations of symptoms prescribed in the 1977 Standards for Determination, and therefore, for the most part, there was no particular error or omission that cannot be overlooked in the process of research, deliberation or determination conducted by said Council, in which the Council concluded that although the Claimant showed more or less sensory disturbance observed mainly at the ends of the extremities, her symptoms involving said sensory disturbance did not meet the 1977 Standards for Determination. The governor of Kumamoto Prefecture made a determination that the Claimant should not be certified as prescribed in Article 4, paragraph (2) of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, relying on the abovementioned determination made by said Council, and there was nothing particularly inappropriate in the governor's determination, and the Disposition made by the governor on the basis of his determination is therefore legal.

2. However, we cannot affirm the abovementioned holdings of the court of prior instance, on the following grounds.
(1) A. The Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, etc. do not contain any particular provision defining what kind of disease Minamata disease is. As mentioned in I-2 (1) D. above, the disease that occurred in the areas around Minamata Bay was defined as a disease caused through the mechanism wherein methylmercury, generated at the acetaldehyde production facility in the Chisso Minamata Plant and discharged in the wastewater from said plant into the Minamata Bay and the vicinity of the mouth of the Minamata River, and then accumulated in fish and shellfish, is taken into the bodies of people who consumed a large quantity of such fish and shellfish and then accumulated in their cerebrum, cerebellum, etc., thereby finally damaging their nervous cells. In light of this, together with the opinions given by the Sassa Committee that were referred to when developing the appended table of the Relief Act Enforcement Order mentioned in I-2 (2) A. above, as well as the fact that there is continuity between the Relief Act and the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act as mentioned in I-2 (2) B. above, it is appropriate to construe that Minamata disease, as set forth in the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, etc., refers to a nervous system disease caused by oral intake of methylmercury accumulated in fish and shellfish. There are no such circumstances suggesting that the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, etc. defined Minamata disease as a disease that is different from Minamata disease that existed as an objective phenomenon with such pathogenic mechanism that was actually observed.
B. The diseases specified by the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, etc. can be categorized into two types; (i) non-specific diseases whose causative contaminant has not yet been proved, such as chronic bronchitis and bronchial asthma, and (ii) specific diseases which have a specific relationship with the causative contaminant thereof and are therefore considered to be unlikely to occur without such contaminant, such as Minamata disease and Itai-Itai disease. In this respect, the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act can be interpreted as follows. In consideration of cases where it is almost impossible to prove the causal relationship between the air pollution and the disease and its mechanism, Article 4, paragraph (1) of said Act provides for such requirements that typically indicate the fact that the claimant has been under the influence of the air pollution in the Class 1 Area in question to a considerable degree? for example, the claimant has domicile in the Class 1 Area in question at the time of the claim and the period during which he/she continued to have domicile in the Class 1 Area in question until the time of the claim is equal to or longer than the prescribed period (items (i) through (iii) of said paragraph)?, in addition to the requirement that the claimant "is found to be afflicted with" the disease in question. By providing these requirements, the Act has developed a new relief scheme by which, upon the claim filed by a person who meets those statutory requirements, certification shall be awarded to the effect that the disease with which the person is afflicted has been caused by the influence of the air pollution in the Class 1 Area in question, without questioning whether or not there is any individual causal relationship between the air pollution in the Class 1 Area in question and the person's disease. On the other hand, with regard to specific diseases, the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act can be interpreted as follows. It is somewhat difficult but basically possible to prove the causal relationship between the air pollution or water contamination and a specific disease, and the fact that the claimant is "found to be afflicted with" the disease also suggests that the mechanism of occurrence of the disease is observed. Accordingly, paragraph (2) of said Article does not provide for such a new relief scheme as that provided for with regard to non-specific diseases, but it stipulates that, upon the claim of a person who is found to be afflicted with a disease whose relationship with the causative substance of the air pollution or water contamination in the Class 2 Area in question is generally clear and which is contracted only from such substance, certification shall be awarded, for each patient and in light of the circumstances concerned as well as the relevant evidence, to the effect that the person's disease has been caused by the influence of the air pollution or water contamination in the Class 2 Area in question.
C. Even through the general review of the legislative history and provisions of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, etc., we cannot find any proper legal grounds for interpreting particularly narrowly the definition of Minamata disease as prescribed in these laws and regulations and the subject matter of review by the administrative agency concerned in terms of whether or not the claimant is afflicted with this disease, compared with the interpretation of Minamata disease as an objective phenomenon and the objective fact as to whether or not the claimant is afflicted with this disease as mentioned in A. above. If it is possible to prove, in light of the circumstances concerned as well as the relevant evidence, an individual causal relationship in which individual specific symptoms are derived from a nervous system disease caused by oral intake of methylmercury, the causative substance, which has been accumulated in fish and shellfish in the areas of Minamata City and Ashikita-gun, nothing in the laws and regulations can preclude issuing certification to the effect that the disease with which the claimant is afflicted and which shows those symptoms is Minamata disease, a specific disease caused by the influence of the water contamination in the areas of Minamata City and Ashikita-gun.
Even supposing that the administrative relief measures and the relief measures under the Act on Special Measures Concerning Relief for Minamata Disease Victims and Solution of Minamata Disease Issues (Act No. 81 of 2009), which were put into action after the enactment of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, etc., have been developed on the premise that certification as a Minamata disease patient is to be issued according to the 1977 Standards for Determination, the meanings of the system and provisions of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, etc. would not be changed by any administrative measures implemented after the enactment of these laws and regulations, nor can anything that would change the meanings of the system and provisions of the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, etc. be found in the provisions of the abovementioned Special Measures Act.
(2) When issuing certification as a disease designated under the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, etc., the prefectural governor is to determine whether or not the claimed disease has been caused by the influence of the air pollution or water contamination in the designated area, while hearing opinions from the Council for Certification of Pollution-related Health Damage or the Council for Certification of Pollution Victims. In this case, the governor needs to make a comprehensive examination as to whether or not the claimed disease has been caused by the influence of the air pollution or water contamination, while giving full consideration not only to medical judgments on each patient's conditions, etc. but also to the patient's experience of being exposed to the causative substance, as well as various epidemiological information and research results. This also applies to the process of issuing certification as a Minamata disease patient under the Pollution-related Health Damage Compensation Act, etc., in which the governor is required to make an examination from a multilateral and comprehensive perspective as necessary.
Issuing the abovementioned certification is itself an action of confirming the objective fact, as mentioned in (1) A. above, which is presently or was previously definite as to whether or not the claimant is afflicted with Minamata disease as an objective phenomenon, and it is inappropriate to leave it to the discretion of the administrative agency concerned to make a determination on this point due to its nature. Also as mentioned in (1) C. above, it is inappropriate to interpret the subject matter of review by the administrative agency concerned particularly narrowly. Consequently, it is appropriate to construe that a judicial review and determination to be made as to whether or not the determination made by the administrative agency concerned is appropriate should not be made through the approach explained in the judgment in prior instance, that is, from the perspective of whether or not there is something unreasonable, in light of the latest level of medicine, with the 1977 Standards for Determination, which were applied by the administrative agency concerned when making its determination, or whether or not there was any error or omission that must not be overlooked in the process of research, deliberation or determination conducted by the Council for Certification of Pollution-related Health Damage and therefore there was something unreasonable with the determination made by the administrative agency concerned on the basis of said Council's determination; rather, said judicial review and determination should be made through the approach wherein the court makes a comprehensive examination of the circumstances concerned and the relevant evidence on a case-by-case basis and in light of the rule of thumb, and reviews matters such as whether or not there is any individual causal relationship between individual specific symptoms and the causative substance, thereby making an individual and specific determination as to whether or not the claimant is afflicted with Minamata disease.
There is no scientific proof to deny the existence of a Minamata disease case which does not show any of the combinations of symptoms prescribed in the 1977 Standards for Determination, which were published as the operational guidelines for the competent administrative agencies in issuing the abovementioned certification, but which only shows sensory disturbance observed mainly at the ends of the extremities. Since the symptoms observed with Minamata disease are generally considered to be non-specific when they occur independently, the 1977 Standards for Determination require a comprehensive examination to be made when determining whether or not the claimant's disease is Minamata disease, while stipulating that in cases where the claimant shows any of the abovementioned combinations of symptoms, his/her disease is generally certified as Minamata disease, thus not requiring any further proof of an individual causal relationship between individual specific symptoms and the causative substance. In other words, the 1977 Standards for Determination can be understood as providing for standards for making a prompt and proper determination in response to a number of claims by presuming the affliction of Minamata disease on the basis of general information, and these standards can be deemed to be reasonable to that extent. On the other hand, even in cases where the claimant shows none of the abovementioned combinations of symptoms, the 1977 Standards for Determination does not rule out the possibility to issue certification as a Minamata disease patient by making a comprehensive examination of the circumstances concerned and the relevant evidence in light of the rule of thumb and then making an individual and specific determination as to matters such as whether or not there is any individual causal relationship between individual specific symptoms and the causative substance. The same understanding as above may be valid for the 1978 Administrative Vice Minister Notice, which explained that the point of the 1971 Administrative Vice Minister Notice concerning the scope of Minamata disease was to state that where a comprehensive examination has been made on the basis of a high level of scholarly acquisition and a wealth of experience in relation to Minamata disease with regard to all symptoms to be subject to the determination as to whether or not a claimant is afflicted with Minamata disease, and as a result, the claimant is medically determined to be afflicted with Minamata disease with a high probability, the claimant's symptoms would be included in the scope of Minamata disease, and which also explained that the 1977 Standards for Determination were issued to make that point more specific and clear.
(3) The holdings of the court of prior instance that are inconsistent with the above contain violation of laws and regulations that apparently affects the judgment. The appeal counsel's arguments are well-grounded as they allege this point, and the judgment in prior instance should inevitably be quashed. We decide to remand the case to the court of prior instance to have it further examine whether or not the Claimant was afflicted with Minamata disease.

Therefore, the judgment has been rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices.

Justice TERADA Itsuro
Justice TAHARA Mutsuo
Justice OKABE Kiyoko
Justice OTANI Takehiko
Justice OHASHI Masaharu