2022.02.15

2021 (Gyo-Tsu) 54

Minshu Vol. 76, No. 2

Judgment concerning Article 2 and Articles 5 to 10 of the Osaka City Ordinance on Dealing with Hate Speech (Osaka City Ordinance No. 1 of 2016) and Article 21, paragraph (1) of the Constitution

Case seeking a declaratory judgment on the invalidity of expenditure of public money, etc.

Judgment of the Third Petty Bench, dismissed

Osaka High Court, Judgment of November 26, 2020

Article 2 and Articles 5 to 10 of the Osaka City Ordinance on Dealing with Hate Speech (Osaka City Ordinance No. 1 of 2016) are not in violation of Article 21, paragraph (1) of the Constitution.

Article 21, paragraph (1) of the Constitution and Articles 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Osaka City Ordinance on Dealing with Hate Speech (Osaka City Ordinance No. 1 of 2016)

The Constitution of Japan

Article 21,paragraph (1)Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed.

Osaka City Ordinance on Dealing with Hate Speech (Osaka City Ordinance No. 1 of 2016)

(Definitions)
Article 2 (1) The term "hate speech" as used in this Ordinance means expression activities that meet all of the following requirements:

(i) the expression activities are conducted for any of the following purposes (regarding (c), activities wherein the relevant purpose is clearly found):

(a) excluding an individual who has specific attributes pertaining to a certain race or ethnic group or a group consisting of such individuals (hereinafter referred to as a "specific person, etc.") from society;

(b) limiting the right or freedom of a specific person, etc.; and

(c) inciting hatred, sense of discrimination or violence against a specific person, etc.;

(ii) the content of the expression or the form of the expression activities falls under either of the following:

(a) insulting a specific person, etc. to a considerable extent or defaming him/her; or

(b) having a specific person, etc. (when the specific person, etc. is a group, a considerable number of individuals who belong to the group) feel threatened; and

(iii) the expression activities are conducted at a place where or by a method whereby unspecified and large number of persons are put in the state of being able to know the content of the expression.

(2) The term "expression activities" as used in this Ordinance include the following activities:

(i) selling, distributing or conducting screen presentation of a printed matter, optical disk (including an item that can record certain matters by a method equivalent thereto without fail) or any other item on which the content of other expression activities is recorded;

(ii) putting a document, picture or image, etc. on which the content of other expression activities is recorded be in the state of being available for inspection or viewing by unspecified and large number of persons by using the internet or any other advanced information and communications network; and

(iii) conducting any other activities to spread the content of other expression activities.

(3) The term "citizen" as used in this Ordinance means a person who resides within the area of this city or a person who commutes to a work place or school within the area of this city.

(4) The term "citizen, etc." as used in this Ordinance means a citizen or an organization consisting of citizens who have specific attributes pertaining to a certain race or ethnic group.

(Publication of Measures to Prevent Spread and Recognition, etc.)
Article 5 (1) When the city mayor finds that any of the following expression activities falls under hate speech, the city mayor is to take necessary measures to prevent the spread of the content of the expression pertaining to the relevant expression activities in line with the content of the case and also publish the fact that they fall under hate speech, the outline of the content of the expression, measures that were taken to prevent the spread thereof, and the name of a person who conducted those expression activities; provided, however, that the city mayor may choose not to publish the name of the person who conducted the expression activities when its publication is found to inhibit the purpose referred to in Article 1, when the whereabouts of the person who conducted the expression activities is not known or when any other special reason is found:

(i) expression activities that were conducted within the area of this city; and

(ii) expression activities that were conducted outside the area of this city (including cases where it is not clear whether the expression activities were conducted within the area of this city) and fall under either of the following;

(a) expression activities for which the content of the expression is clearly found to be related to a citizen, etc.; or

(b) expression activities other than those set forth in (a) that are intended to spread within the area of this city the content of any hate speech that was expressed within the area of this city.

(2) The measures and publication of the fact under the provisions of the preceding paragraph are to be conducted upon a request of a citizen, etc. that is a specific person, etc. who considers that expression activities fall under hate speech relating to themselves or by the city mayor's authority.

(3) When the city mayor intends to conduct publication of the fact under the provisions of paragraph (1), the city mayor must notify a person who expressed hate speech for which the publication is to be conducted of the content of the publication and reasons therefor in advance and give such person an opportunity to state his/her opinions and submit evidence favorable thereto by specifying a reasonable period of time; provided, however, that this does not apply if the whereabouts of a person who expressed hate speech for which the publication is to be conducted is not known or if the content of the publication is the same as the content of publication that was made subject to the hearing of opinions of the Osaka City Hate Speech Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Examination Board") under the provisions of Article 7 based on the provisions of paragraph (3) of the following Article and the opinion that the content of the publication is appropriate was expressed at the Examination Board.

(4) The opinions of the subject person referred to in the main clause of the preceding paragraph must be stated in writing except when the city mayor permits them to be orally stated.

(5) In conducting publication of the fact under the provisions of paragraph (1), the city mayor must pay sufficient attention so as to prevent the spread of the content of the relevant hate speech.

(6) The publication of the fact under the provisions of paragraph (1) is to be conducted by an internet-based method or any other method specified by the rules of the city.

(Hearing of Opinions of the Examination Board)
Article 6 (1) When the city mayor received a request referred to in paragraph (2) of the preceding Article or finds that expression activities set forth in the items of paragraph (1) of the same Article are likely to fall under hate speech, the city mayor must hear the opinions of the Examination Board in relation to the following matters in advance; provided, however, that this does not apply if a request referred to in paragraph (2) of the preceding Article was made and it is clearly found that the expression activities pertaining to the request do not fall under any of the items of paragraph (1) of the same Article:

(i) the fact that the expression activities fall under any of the items of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article; and

(ii) the fact that the expression activities fall under hate speech.

(2) When the city mayor did not hear the opinions of the Examination Board as prescribed in the proviso to the preceding paragraph, the city mayor must promptly report to the Examination Board to that effect. In this case, the Examination Board may state to the city mayor its opinions regarding the matters pertaining to the report.

(3) Where the Examination Board stated its opinions under the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, and when the city mayor intends to take measures or conduct publication of the fact under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article, the city mayor must hear the opinions of the Examination Board in relation to the content of the measures and publication in advance; provided, however, that in case of emergency or in other cases where the city mayor finds it especially necessary for achieving the purpose referred to in Article 1, the city mayor may take measures under the provisions of the same paragraph without hearing the opinions of the Examination Board.

(4) When the city mayor took measures under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article without hearing the opinions of the Examination Board pursuant to the provisions of the proviso to the preceding paragraph, the city mayor must promptly report to the Examination Board to that effect. In this case, the Examination Board may state to the city mayor its opinions regarding the matters pertaining to the report.

(5) When the Examination Board expressed its opinions under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the city mayor is to publish the content of the opinions in the publication of the fact under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article.

(Establishment of the Examination Board)
Article 7 (1) The Examination Board is established as an auxiliary organization under the city mayor in order to have it study and deliberate the matters that were specified as falling under its authority pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs (1) to (4) of the preceding Article in response to a consultation or state its opinions on these matters in response to a report.

(2) Beyond what is provided for in the preceding paragraph, the Examination Board is to study and deliberate important matters relating to the enforcement of this Ordinance in response to a consultation from the city mayor and may state its opinions on these matters to the city mayor.

(Organization of the Examination Board)
Article 8 (1) The Examination Board is composed of not more than five members.

(2) The city mayor is to commission members of the Examination Board out of persons with relevant expertise and any other persons who are found to be appropriate with the consent of the city council.

(3) The term of office of the members of the Examination Board is to be two years; provided, however, a substitute member holds office during the remaining term of the predecessor.

(4) The members of the Examination Board may be reappointed only once.

(5) The members of the Examination Board must not divulge any secret which have come to their knowledge in the course of duties. The same applies even after they have left the position.

(6) The members of the Examination Board must neither become an officer of a political party or any other political organization nor actively engage in political activities while in office.

(7) When a member of the Examination Board violated the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, the city mayor may relieve the member.

(Study and Deliberation Procedures of the Examination Board)
Article 9 (1) When the Examination Board finds it necessary, it may request the city mayor or a citizen, etc. who made a request under the provisions of Article 5, paragraph (2) in relation to the expression activities subject to study and deliberation (hereinafter referred to as a "requester") to submit a written opinion or material, have any persons who are found to be appropriate state facts that they know, and conduct any other necessary studies.

(2) The Examination Board must give a requester pertaining to the expression activities subject to study and deliberation or a person who conducted the relevant expression activities (hereinafter these persons are referred to as a "relevant person") an opportunity to state his/her opinions in writing and submit evidence favorable thereto by specifying a reasonable period of time; provided, however, that this does not apply to a relevant person if his/her whereabouts is unknown.

(3) Beyond what is provided for in the preceding paragraph, when the Examination Board received a request from a relevant person, it must give the relevant person an opportunity to orally state his/her opinions by specifying a reasonable period of time; provided, however, that this does not apply if the Examination Board finds it unnecessary to do so.

(4) In the case referred to in the main clause of the preceding paragraph, a relevant person may appear together with an assistant with permission of the Examination Board.

(5) When the Examination Board finds it necessary, it may have a member it designates conduct the following:

(i) undertaking a study under the provisions of paragraph (1);

(ii) hearing a relevant person's statement of opinions under the provisions of the main clause of paragraph (3); and

(iii) receiving a report under the provisions of Article 6, paragraph (2).

(6) The study and deliberation procedures conducted by the Examination Board are not to be open to the public; provided, however, that the study and deliberation procedures relating to the matters provided in Article 7, paragraph (2) are to be conducted in a manner open to the public unless this causes any special problem.

(Delegation of Provisions on the Examination Board)
Article 10 Beyond what is provided for in the preceding three Articles, necessary matters in relation to the organization and operation of the Examination Board and the study and deliberation procedures are to be provided for by the rules of the city.

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the appellants of final appeal.

Concerning the reasons for final appeal stated by the counsel for final appeal, TOKUNAGA Shinichi and IWAHARA Yoshinori

No. 1 Outline of the case

1. Article 2 and Articles 5 to 10 (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisions") of the Osaka City Ordinance on Dealing with Hate Speech (Osaka City Ordinance No. 1 of 2016; hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance") first define certain expression activities as hate speech and then provide that in relation to expression activities that fall under hate speech and were conducted within the area of Osaka City (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), the city mayor is to take necessary measures to prevent the content of the expression pertaining to the expression activities, and that the Osaka Hate Speech Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Examination Board") is to be established as an organization that studies and deliberates or otherwise handles the issue of whether certain expression activities meet the aforementioned definition in response to a consultation from the city mayor.

This case is an action filed by the appellants, who are residents in the City, against the appellee, which is the executive agency of the City, wherein they allege that an order for expenditure pertaining to remuneration for the members of the Examination Board, etc. lacks its ground under laws and regulations and is illegal as the Provisions are in violation of Article 21, paragraph (1), etc. of the Constitution and is invalid, and based on this allegation, they seek compensation for loss or damage against a person who held the office of the city mayor at that time under Article 242-2, paragraph (1), item (iv) of the Local Autonomy Act.

2. The outline of the Provisions is as follows.

(1) The main paragraph of Article 2, paragraph (1) of the Ordinance provides that the term "hate speech" as used in the Ordinance means expression activities that fall under all of A. to C. below (hereinafter such expression activities are referred to as "hate speech under the Ordinance"):

A. the expression activities are conducted for any of the following purposes (regarding (C), activities wherein the relevant purpose is clearly found; the same applies hereinafter) (main paragraph of item (i) of the same paragraph):

(A) excluding an individual who has specific attributes pertaining to a certain race or ethnic group or a group consisting of such individuals (hereinafter referred to as a "specific person, etc.") from society ((a) of the same item);

(B) limiting the right or freedom of a specific person, etc. ((b) of the same item); and

(c) inciting hatred, sense of discrimination or violence against a specific person, etc. ((c) of the same item);

B. the content of the expression or the form of the expression activities falls under either of the following (main paragraph of item (ii) of the same paragraph):

(A) insulting a specific person, etc. to a considerable extent or defaming him/her ((a) of the same item); or

(B) having a specific person, etc. (when the specific person, etc. is a group, a considerable number of individuals who belong to the group; hereinafter the same applies in relation to (b) of the same item) feel threatened ((b) of the same item); and

C. the expression activities are conducted at a place where or by a method whereby unspecified and large number of persons are put in the state of being able to know the content of the expression (item (iii) of the same paragraph).

(2) The main clause of the main paragraph of Article 5, paragraph (1) of the Ordinance provides that when the city mayor finds that any of the expression activities stated in A. or B. below fall under hate speech, the city mayor is to take necessary measures to prevent the spread of the content of the expression pertaining to the relevant expression activities in line with the content of the case (hereinafter referred to as "measures to prevent spread") and also publish the fact that they fall under hate speech, the outline of the content of the expression, measures that were taken to prevent the spread thereof, and the name of a person who conducted those expression activities (hereinafter this publication is referred to as "publication of recognition, etc." and, together with measures to prevent spread, is referred to as "measures to prevent spread, etc."):

A. expression activities that were conducted within the area of the City (item (i) of the same paragraph); and

B. expression activities, etc. that were conducted outside the area of the City and fall under either of the following activities (main paragraph of item (ii) of the same paragraph);

(A) expression activities for which the content of the expression is clearly found to be related to a citizen, etc. ((a) of the same item); or

(B) expression activities other than those set forth above that are intended to spread within the area of the City the content of any hate speech under the Ordinance that was expressed within the area of the City ((b) of the same item).

(3) The main clause of the main paragraph of Article 6, paragraph (1) of the Ordinance provides that when the city mayor finds that expression activities set forth in A. or B. above are likely to fall under hate speech under the Ordinance or in other cases, the city mayor must hear the opinions of the Examination Board in relation to the fact that the expression activities fall under either A. or B. above and the fact that the expression activities fall under hate speech under the Ordinance in advance.

(4) Article 7, paragraph (1) of the Ordinance provides that the Examination Board is established as an auxiliary organization under the city mayor in order to have it study and deliberate the aforementioned matters, etc. in response to a consultation or state its opinions in response to a report. Article 8 of the Ordinance provides that the Examination Board is composed of not more than five members (paragraph (1)) and that the city mayor is to commission members of the Examination Board from persons with relevant expertise and any other persons who are found to be appropriate with the consent of the city council (paragraph (2)). In addition, Article 9 of the Ordinance provides for the study and deliberation procedures of the Examination Board, and Article 10 of the Ordinance provides that beyond what is provided for in Articles 7 to 9 of the Ordinance, necessary matters in relation to the organization and operation of the Examination Board and the study and deliberation procedures are to be provided for by rules.

3. The outline of facts lawfully determined by the court of prior instance is as follows.

(1) According to the "Fiscal 2015 Ministry of Justice Commissioned Study and Research Project: Report on Fact-Finding Survey on Hate Speech," which was published by the Center for Human Rights Education and Training in March 2016, a study on the activities of organizations which were pointed out by news reports as conducting demonstrations or propaganda activities accompanied by what is referred to as hate speech revealed 1,152 cases where demonstrations and propaganda activities accompanied by the content intended to uniformly reject a group of persons who belong to a specific ethnic group, etc. or the content intended to cause harm to the lives, bodies, etc. of persons who belong to the same group were conducted nationwide for the period of three years and six months from April 2012 to September 2015, of which, 164 cases, accounting for 14.2%, were conducted within Osaka Prefecture. In addition, according to the aforementioned report, it was confirmed that in addition to statements with the content as mentioned above, statements especially defaming a group of persons who belong to a specific ethnic group, etc. by referring to it with derogatory names were made in demonstrations and propaganda activities conducted in Osaka City in June 2012, May and September 2014, and March and April 2015. Moreover, according to the report, there was a media report that statements alleging that there is nothing wrong with chanting slogans to incite the killing of persons who belong to a specific ethnic group and that persons who belong to that ethnic group are not the same living beings were made in propaganda activities conducted in Umeda, Kita-ku, Osaka City in April 2013.

(2) In February 2015, in response to a consultation from the city mayor, the Osaka City Council for Promotion of Human Rights Measures, which was established under the Osaka City Ordinance on Creation of Society with Respect for Human Rights (Osaka City Ordinance No. 25 of 2000), made a council report to the following effect (hereinafter referred to as the "Council Report"): hate speech is actually being observed within the City, and therefore, it is necessary for the City to clearly express its stance not to tolerate hate speech by taking unique and available measures against hate speech in order to protect the human rights of the citizens. In the Council Report, the council stated that regarding cases that were found to fall under hate speech, it is appropriate to publish the recognition that those cases fall under hate speech, the outline of the cases, and measures that were taken while paying sufficient attention to ensure that the publication would not lead to the spread of discrimination. On the other hand, the council stated that it is appropriate to exclude mere criticisms and accusations from the subject of the aforementioned measures, etc. and limit the subject to expression activities that are intended for exclusion of certain individuals and groups from society, etc. in consideration of the relationship with the freedom of expression under the Constitution.

(3) In response to the Council Report, a draft ordinance pertaining to the Ordinance was submitted to the city council in May 2015 and was approved and established on January 15, 2016 after deliberations at the city council.

(4) In June 2015, the city council passed a resolution to submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the House of Councillors, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications, and the Minister of Justice a written opinion to the following effect under Article 99 of the Local Autonomy Act: the city council strongly requests the prompt promotion of measures with a view toward the development of effective laws toward eradication of hate speech in light of the fact that hate speech is frequently expressed within the City during demonstrations or propaganda activities.

No. 2 Concerning the argument that the Provisions are in violation of Article 21, paragraph (1) of the Constitution out of the reasons for final appeal

1. (1) According to the aforementioned facts, etc. it appears that propaganda activities, etc. accompanied by discriminatory words and actions, such as the content intended to uniformly reject a group of persons who belong to a specific ethnic group, etc., the content intended to cause harm to the lives, bodies, etc. of persons who belong to the same group, and the content especially defaming the same group by referring to it with derogatory names, were frequently conducted within the City at the time when the Ordinance was established. Then, in the Council Report, the council stated that hate speech is actually being observed within the City and that regarding cases that the City has found to fall under hate speech, it is appropriate for the City to publish the recognition that those cases fall under hate speech, the outline of the cases, and measures that were taken. On the other hand, the council stated that it is appropriate to exclude mere criticisms and accusations from the subject of the aforementioned measures, etc. and limit the subject to expression activities that are intended for exclusion of certain individuals and groups from society, etc. in consideration of the relationship with the freedom of expression under the Constitution. In response to this, a draft ordinance pertaining to the Ordinance was submitted and was approved and established. The Ordinance provides that its purpose is to protect the human rights of citizens, etc. and deter hate speech under the Ordinance (Article 1), taking into account the fact that hate speech under the Ordinance are likely to give rise to a sense of discrimination. The Ordinance also provides that it is necessary to pay attention not to unjustly infringe the freedom of expression and other rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution when applying the Ordinance (Article 11). In light of these facts, as well as the background to the establishment of the Ordinance as mentioned above, it is reasonable to consider that the Ordinance is intended to deter extreme and highly malicious discriminatory behavior that is performed on the grounds of individuals' specific attributes pertaining to a certain race or ethnic group as mentioned above while giving consideration to the guarantee of the freedom of expression.

(2) As the definition of hate speech under the Ordinance that is subject to measures to prevent spread, etc., the main paragraph of Article 2, paragraph (1) of the Ordinance provides that such hate speech means expression activities that fall under all of the items of the same paragraph. In light of the context of the provisions and the aforementioned purport of the Ordinance, item (i) of the same paragraph requires the existence of a certain unjust purpose. Specifically, it is reasonable to consider that the same item provides that relevant expression activities must be conducted for the purpose of any of (a) to (c) of the same item on the grounds of individuals' specific attributes pertaining to a certain race or ethnic group. In addition, item (ii) of the same paragraph also requires that the content of the expression and the form of the expression activities are highly malicious. Specifically, it is reasonable to consider that the same item provides that relevant expression activities must be intended to insult a specific person, etc. to a considerable extent or defame him/her, such as referring to a specific person, etc. with derogatory names ((a) of the same item) or to have a specific person, etc. feel threatened in light of common sense, through actions such as expressing an intention to harm the life, body or property of a specific person, etc. or showing fervor to cause such harm ((b) of the same item). Then, item (iii) of the same paragraph can also be considered to provide that targeted expression activities are not those merely conducted among limited persons, such as peers, but those conducted at a place where or by a method whereby an unspecified and large number of persons are put in the state of being able to know the content of the expression, in light of the aforementioned purport, etc. of the Ordinance.

2. Next, whether the Provisions are in violation of Article 21, paragraph (1) of the Constitution is examined below.

The freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 21, paragraph (1) of the Constitution is a fundamental human right that is essential for the political process of constitutional democracy and is an important right that provides the basis for a democratic society. However, it is not guaranteed without limit, but it should be said that the freedom of expression is sometimes restricted by public welfare to a reasonable, necessary, and indispensable extent. Then, in this case, it is reasonable to determine whether restriction on the freedom of expression under the Provisions is approved as restriction to the aforementioned extent by weighing the degree of necessity of restriction for the purpose of the Provisions, the content and nature of the freedom restricted, and the form and degree, etc. of specific restriction imposed on the freedom (see 1977 (O) 927, the judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of June 22, 1983, Minshu Vol. 37, No. 5, at 793, etc.).

The Provisions can be considered to constrain a certain range of the freedom of expression through measures to prevent spread, etc. The purpose thereof is considered to exist in the promotion of deterrence of hate speech under the Ordinance in light of the context, etc. thereof. Then, needless to say, there is a significant need to deter expression activities that fall under hate speech under the Ordinance which can cause civil or criminal liability, such as expression activities targeting specific individuals. In addition, in light of what was instructed in 1.(2) above, expression activities that cannot be considered to immediately cause the aforementioned liability, like those targeting an unspecified and large number of persons, such as a certain ethnic group as a whole, are also publicly conducted for unjust purposes, such as exclusion of a specific person, etc. from society on the grounds of his/her specific attributes pertaining to a certain race or ethnic group. In terms of their content or form, such expression activities can be considered to especially induce or foment a sense of discrimination, hatred, etc. against persons who belong to a certain race or ethnic group or agitate criminal acts, through actions such as causing harm to the lives, bodies, etc. of those persons. Therefore, it should be said that there is still a significant need to deter such expression activities. In addition, it can be said that the purpose of the Provisions is reasonable and justifiable, taking into account the fact that propaganda activities, etc. accompanied by extreme and highly malicious discriminatory behavior as mentioned above seem to have been frequently conducted in the City.

Moreover, the content and nature of expression activities that are restricted pursuant to the Provisions are limited to those accompanied by extreme and highly malicious discriminatory behavior as mentioned above. In addition, in terms of the form and degree of the restriction, such expression activities only become subject to measures to prevent spread, etc. taken by the city mayor after the fact. Then, regarding measures to prevent spread, it is considered that the city mayor may make a request for the removal of a signboard, posted matter, etc. and a request for the deletion of an expression on the internet, etc. However, there is no sanction against a person who does not accept such request, etc. Regarding the publication of recognition, etc., there is no enforceable means for identifying the name of a person who conducted relevant expression activities.

Therefore, it should be said that restriction on the freedom of expression under the Provisions is only to a reasonable, necessary, and inevitable extent. According to what was instructed above, out of the Provisions, Article 2, paragraph (1) of the Ordinance that provides for the definition of hate speech under the Ordinance and Article 5, paragraph (1) of the Ordinance that provides for the requirements for the city mayor to take measures to prevent spread, etc. are said to be provisions from which the standards for determining whether relevant expression activities are subject to the application of the Provisions in specific cases can be understood based on the comprehension of the general public having the ordinary capacity to make determinations. Therefore, the Provisions can neither be considered unclear nor be considered as an excessively extensive regulation.

3. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Provisions are in violation of Article 21, paragraph (1) of the Constitution. It should be said that the aforementioned point is clear in light of the purport of the judgments of the Grand Bench of this Court (the judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of June 22, 1983 cited above; 1982 (Gyo-Tsu) 156, the judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of December 12, 1984, Minshu Vol. 38, No. 12, at 1308; 1986 (Gyo-Tsu) 11, the judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of July 1, 1992, Minshu Vol. 46, No. 5, at 437). The arguments made by the counsel are not acceptable.

No. 3 Concerning other reasons for final appeal

The arguments are arguing unconstitutionality but are substantially arguments of a mere violation of laws and regulations or arguments that lack a premise, and do not constitute any of the reasons provided in Article 312, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, the Court unanimously decides as set forth in the main text of the judgement.

Justice TOKURA Saburo

Justice UGA Katsuya

Justice HAYASHI Michiharu

Justice NAGAMINE Yasumasa

Justice WATANABE Eriko