1992.11.26

1988 (Gyo-Tsu) 170

Minshu Vol. 46, No. 8

Judgment concerning whether or not a decision on a project plan for a type-2 urban redevelopment project made under the Urban Renewal Act constitutes an administrative disposition against which an appeal for judicial review may be filed

Case to seek revocation of the decision on project plans including the Osaka City Planning Project

Judgment of the First Petty Bench, dismissed

Osaka High Court, Judgment of June 24, 1988

A decision on a project plan for a type-2 urban redevelopment project which has been made and for which public notice has been given by a local government under Article 51, paragraph (1) and Article 54, paragraph (1) of the Urban Renewal Act constitutes an administrative disposition against which an appeal for judicial review may be filed.

Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act, Article 51 and Article 54, paragraph (1) of the Urban Renewal Act



Administrative Case Litigation Act

Article 3

(2) The term "action for the revocation of the original administrative disposition" as used in this Act means an action seeking the revocation of an original administrative disposition and any other act constituting the exercise of public authority by an administrative agency (excluding an administrative disposition on appeal, decision or any other act prescribed in the following paragraph; hereinafter simply referred to as an "original administrative disposition").

Urban Renewal Act

Article 51

(1) When a local government intends to execute an urban redevelopment project, it must stipulate execution rules and a project plan. In this case, the outline of the design specified in the project plan must be approved by the Minister of Construction if the project executor is a prefecture, or by the prefectural governor if the project executor is a municipality, pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction.

(2) When a project plan has been stipulated with respect to an urban redevelopment project to be executed by a local government, the approval under the provisions of the preceding paragraph is deemed to be the approval under the provisions of Article 59, paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) of the City Planning Act. In this case, the provisions of the proviso to Article 7-9, paragraph (3) apply mutatis mutandis.

Article 54

(1) When a local government has stipulated a project plan, it must, without delay, give public notice of the type and name of the urban redevelopment project, the project period, the project area (if the project area is divided into work areas, the project area and the work areas), and other matters specified by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction.

The final appeal is dismissed.

The appellant of final appeal shall bear the cost of the final appeal.

Concerning the reasons for final appeal argued by the appeal counsel

Article 51, paragraph (1) and Article 54, paragraph (1) of the Urban Renewal Act provide that when a municipality intends to execute a type-2 urban redevelopment project, it must decide on a project plan (hereinafter referred to as a "redevelopment project plan"), while obtaining approval from the prefectural governor for the outline of the design, and give public notice of this decision. A type-2 urban redevelopment project is deemed to fall within the category of projects prescribed in the items of Article 3 of the Land Expropriation Act and the provisions of said Act apply thereto (Article 6, paragraph (1) of the Urban Renewal Act, Article 69 of the City Planning Act). With regard to such project, the approval of the outline of the design given by the prefectural governor acts as a substitute for the recognition of a project under the provisions of Article 20 of the Land Expropriation Act, and the public notice of a decision on a redevelopment project plan is deemed to be the public notice of recognition of a project under the provisions of Article 26, paragraph (1) of the Land Expropriation Act (Article 6, paragraph (4) of the Urban Renewal Act, Article 1-6 of the Order for Enforcement of said Act, Article 70, paragraph (1) of the City Planning Act). A decision on a redevelopment project plan, as of the date of the public notice, becomes legally effective in the same manner as that of the recognition of a project under the Land Expropriation Act (Article 26, paragraph (4) of said Act), and accordingly, by reason of the public notice of said decision, the municipality acquires the power to expropriate under said Act, which results in putting the owners, etc. of land, etc. within the project area into the position where their land, etc. would be expropriated unless there are special circumstances to the contrary. Moreover, in such case, under the Urban Renewal Act, the owners, etc. of building lots, etc. within the project area would be forced to make a choice, within 30 days from the date of the public notice of said decision, as to whether they would receive payment of compensation for their building lots, etc. to be acquired by the project executor (the municipality) by contract or through expropriation, or offer to acquire a portion of a facility to be constructed, instead of receiving such compensation (Article 118-2, paragraph (1), item (i) of said Act).

Assuming this, it is appropriate to construe that a decision of a redevelopment project plan for which public notice has been given has a direct effect on the legal status of the owners, etc. of the land, etc. within the project area, and thus it constitutes an administrative disposition against which an action for judicial review may be filed.

From the same viewpoint as this, the court of prior instance determined that the action filed in this case to seek revocation of the decision on the project plan made by the appellant of final appeal is lawful. Such determination can be affirmed as justifiable. The judgment in prior instance does not involve such illegality as argued by the appeal counsel. The judicial precedent cited by the appeal counsel, 1962 (O) No. 122, judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of February 23, 1966 (Minshu Vol. 20, No. 2, at 271), is irrelevant in this case because it addresses a different type of case.

Therefore, according to Article 7 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act, and Articles 401, 95 and 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment has been rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices.

Justice ONO Motoo

Justice OHORI Seiichi

Justice HASHIMOTO Shirohei

Justice MIMURA Osamu

Justice MIYOSHI Toru