1996.01.30

1996 (Ku) 8

Minshu Vol.50, No.1, at 199

Decision upon the case where the dissolution order on the grounds provided by Art.81, para.1, subpara.1 and the first half of subpara 2 the Law on Religious Organizations is not against Art. 20, para.1 of the Constitution

special kokoku appeal against the decision to dismiss a kokoku appeal against an order to disband a religious organisation

Decision of the First Petty Bench, Dismissed

Tokyo High Court

The dissolution order on the grounds provided by Art.81, para.1, subpara. 1 and the first half of subpara.2 in relation to a religious organisation which produced sarin gas systematically and in an organised manner for the purpose of mass murder solely addresses the eclectic aspect of the religious organisation and does not intend to interfere with the spiritual and religious aspects of the religious organisation or the believers. Under the circumstances where although it was unavoidable that by the dissolution order, there would be some disruption to the religious acts by the religious organisation and its believers, such a disruption remains indirect and a de facto outcome of the order, it is a necessary and unavoidable legal regulation and is not against Article 20, para.1 of the Constitution.

Main text of the judgment:
The kokoku appeal shall be dismissed.
The cost of appeal shall be borne by the kokoku appellant.

Reasons:
On the ground of appeal items 3 and 4 of the representatives of the kokoku appellant, TK and HS:

The representatives argue that the decision of the first instance court disbanding the appellant (hereinafter, 'the Dissolution Order') and the decision of the original instance court which dismissed the instant kokoku appeal against this order would erode the basis of religious life of the believers of the appellant religion, and in substance, infringe upon the freedom of religion of the believers, and therefore, are against Article 20 of the Constitution. In the following, this argument shall be examined.

The Dissolution Order was issued to the kokoku appellant, which is a religious organisation with a juridical personality under the Law on Religious Organisations (hereinafter, 'the Law'), since there were grounds as provided in Art.81, para.1, subpara 1 of the Law.

The Law purports to grant legal capability to religious organisations in order for these organisations to own and manage installations for rituals and other assets (Art.1, para.1 of the Law) and provides that these organisations may be granted juridical personality (Art.4 of the Law). Thus, the regulation on religious organisations by the Law solely addresses the eclectic aspect of religious organisations and does not extent to its spiritual or religious aspects. The Law does not intend to interfere with the freedom of religion such as the conduct of religious rituals by the believers (Art.1, para.2 of the Law). The Dissolution Order addressed to religious organisations as provided by Art.81 of the Law is designed to enable the compulsory dissolution of religious organisations by judicial procedure and the deprivation of juridical personality in cases where there was an act which is against the law and substantially harms public welfare (Art.81, para.1, subpara.1 of the Law), an act which substantially exceeds the goal of a religious organisation (ibid., subpara 2, first half), or where the organisation ceased to have the substance of a religious juridical person or juridical organisation (ibid., second half, and subparas. 3 to 5), since in such cases, it is inappropriate or unnecessary to leave the religious organisation with legal capability. This is similar to the order to dissolve companies (Art.58 of Commercial Code).

Therefore, even if a religious organisation is dissolved as a result of a dissolution order, believers are not prevented from continuing a religious organisation without juridical personality or from creating such an organisation anew, nor are they prevented from conducting religious acts or from procuring new installations or equipment for the exercise of such acts. The Dissolution Order does not accompany any legal effect which prohibits or limits religious acts by the believers. Admittedly, when a dissolution order takes effect, a liquidation procedure follows (Art.49, para.2, Art.51 of the Law), and as a result, the assets of the religious organisation such as the installation for rituals and other assets used for religious acts will be disposed of (Art.50 of the Law), and there is a possibility of some disruption to the continuation of religious acts which the believers had been conducting by using these assets. Although legal regulations on religious organisations do not accompany the effect of legally restricting the religious acts of the believers, if there is a possibility of some disruption to them, in light of the significance of religious freedom which is one of the spiritual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, whether the Constitution allows such restrictions should be examined carefully.

If one looks at the present case from the above viewpoint, the system of the dissolution order of religious organisations, as pointed out above, solely addresses the eclectic aspect of religious organisations and, is solely for an eclectic purpose, and does not intend to interfere with the spiritual and religious aspects of religious organisations or the believers, and thus, the goal of the system is reasonable. According to the facts established by the original instance court, A, who was the representative officer of the kokoku appellant, and many cadres of the organisation under the instruction of A, plotted to produce sarin, which is a poisonous gas, for the purpose of mass murder and produced it systematically in an organised manner by mobilising many believers, using the installations and financial resources of the appellant. It is evident that the kokoku appellant has acted against the law and committed an act which is substantially against public welfare and has substantially exceeded the goal of a religious organisation. In order to deal with such an act by the kokoku appellant, it is necessary and appropriate to dissolve the kokoku appellant and to deprive it of its juridical personality. On the other hand, although it is unavoidable that by the dissolution order, there is some disruption to the religious acts by Aumu Shinrikyo as a religious organisation and its believers, such a disruption remains an indirect and de facto outcome of the dissolution order. Therefore, the Dissolution Order, even when considering the effect it may have on the spiritual and religious aspects of Aumu Shinrikyo as a religious organisation and its believers, can be regarded as a necessary and unavoidable legal regulation in order to deal with the acts of the kokoku appellant. Furthermore, the Dissolution Order was issued through judicial scrutiny by the court based upon Art.81 of the Law, and therefore, the procedural fairness is guaranteed.

It goes without saying that the freedom of religious acts should be respected to the maximum degree possible, but it is not absolutely limitless. Taking the above into consideration, the Order Dissolution and the decision of the original instance court which dismissed the instant kokoku appeal are not against Article 20 of the Constitution, and this is in line with the precedent of the Supreme Court (Supreme Court, 1961 (a) No.485, Judgment of the Grand Bench, Supreme Court, May 15, 1963, Keishu Vol.17, No.4, at 302). The argument by the representatives of the kokoku appellant is not acceptable.

On the other grounds of kokoku appeal:
The arguments either claim that the decision of the original instance court was against the law or the Constitution, or criticises the inappropriateness of the measures taken by the original instance court which belongs to its discretion, and do not serve as grounds for appeal as provided by Art.419-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Therefore, the kokoku appeal shall be dismissed and the cost of appeal shall be borne by the appellants. The justices unanimously rule the main text of the decision.

Art. 20, para. 1 of the Constitution of Japan, Art. 81 of the Law on Religious Organisations

JusticeONO Motoo
JusticeTAKAHASHI Hisako
JusticeENDO Mitsuo
JusticeFUJII Masao