2001.12.07

2001 (Shi) 108

Keishu Vol.55, No.7, at 823

Decision upon the case conserning propriety of lodging Kokoku appeal against the decision upon juvenile compensation and Article 14, Article 32 of the Constitution

Special Kokoku appeal lodged with the permission of the high court against the decision dismissing Kokoku appeal against the decision on juvenile compensation

Decision of the Second Petty Bench, dismissed

Fukuoka High Court, Decision of March 7, 2001

It is not permissible to lodge Kokoku appeal against the decision rendered pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Law for Compensation concerning Juvenile Cases, and the said construction is not in conflict with Article 14, Article 32 of the Constitution.

Article 5 of the Law for Compensation concerning Juvenile Cases
Determination on whether or not compensation is necessary as well as the details of compensation shall be arrived at upon decision pronounced by the competent family court which has rendered the decision set forth in Article 2.
2. Utmost effort should be made to pronounce the decision concerning compensation set forth in the preceding paragraph within 30 days from the day when the decision set forth in Article 2 becomes final.
3. If the juvenile in question brings forward a motion to the effect that the said decision concerning compensation pursuant to paragraph 1 be changed within 14 days from the date of notification thereof, the family court may change the said decision by pronouncing another decision, if deemed necessary.

Article 19 of the Criminal Compensation Law
As to the decision under Article 16, the petitioner or an heir of the same descent as such may lodge immediate Kokoku appeal; provided that if the competent court which has pronounced the said decision is a high court, a complaint may be filed with the said high court.
2. As to the decision upon immediate Kokoku appeal or complaint lodged under the preceding paragraph, if there exists a cause which falls under any of the items of Article 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Kokoku appeal may be exceptionally lodged with the Supreme Court.
3. The provisions of Article 9 to Article 15, Article 17 and the preceding article shall apply to the cases set forth in the preceding two paragraphs mutatis mutandis.

Article 14 of the Constitution
All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.
Peers and peerage shall not be recognized.
No privilege shall accompany any award of honor, decoration or any distinction, nor shall any such award be valid beyond the lifetime of the individual who now holds or hereafter may receive it.

Article 32 of the Constitution
No person shall be denied the right of access to the courts.

This Kokoku appeal is hereby dismissed.

The essence of the reasons for this Kokoku appeal is that although any provisions are set forth to allow for appeal against the decision upon compensation pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Law for Compensation concerning Juvenile Cases, it should be understood that Kokoku appeal may be lodged by applying the purport of Article 19, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Compensation Law mutatis mutandis or by analogy, otherwise it would be in conflict with Article 14, and Article 32 of the Constitution.

(Summary) Because the above-mentioned decision represents a determination arrived at by the competent family court ex officio on whether or not compensation is necessary as well as the details of compensation, if any and is different from adjudication under the Criminal Compensation Law in its nature, however, it is not permissible to lodge Kokoku appeal by applying the purport of the said law mutatis mutandis or by analogy, and we uphold the original judgment to the same effect and rule it proper. In view of the aforesaid nature of the above-mentioned decision, it is evident that the said construction is not in conflict with Article 14, and Article 32 of the Constitution, in the light of the essence of the precedents furnished by the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court (Case 1962(O)No.1472, Judgment of May 27, 1964, Minshu Vol.18, No. 4, at 676; Case 1965(Ku)No.464, Decision of December 16, 1970, Minshu Vol.24, No. 13, at 2099).

Therefore, the decision is unanimously reached as stated in the main text.

Justice KITAGAWA Hiroharu
Justice KAWAI Shinichi
Justice FUKUDA Hiroshi
Justice KAMEYAMA Tsugio
Justice KAJITANI Gen