2004.10.15

2001(O)1194

Minshu Vol. 58, No. 7

Judgment that held that the failure of the national government to exercise the authority to enforce regulations under the Water Quality Laws in order to prevent the spread of health hazards caused by Minamata disease was illegal under Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation

Jokoku appeal cases to seek damages and restitution against a provisional execution, etc., and incidental jokoku appeal cases

Judgment of the Second Petty Bench, partially quashed and decided by the Supreme Court, and partially dismissed

Osaka High Court, Judgment of April 27, 2001

Given the facts that the national government, as of the end of November 1959, recognized that a large number of people had contracted Minamata disease and a considerable number of them had died of the disease, was able to recognize, with high probability, that the causative substance of Minamata disease was a kind of organic mercury compound discharged from the acetaldehyde-manufacturing facility of a particular plant, and was capable of quantitatively analyzing a small amount of mercury contained in effluent discharged from the plant, the failure of the national government, by the end of December 1959, to exercise the authority to enforce regulations in order to prevent the spread of serious health hazards caused by Minamata disease, by designating the area as a designated water area, establishing water quality standards, and designating the plant as a specified facility or ordering the company concerned to improve the method of treating effluent discharged from the manufacturing facility, temporarily stop using the facility or take other necessary measures under the Law Concerning Conservation of Water Quality in Public Waters and the Law for Control of Plant Effluent, shall be deemed to be illegal under Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation.

Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation, Article 1 of the Law Concerning Conservation of Water Quality in Public Waters (before amendment by Law No. 108 of 1970), Article 5 of the Law Concerning Conservation of Water Quality in Public Waters, and Articles 1, 2(2), 7, and 12 of the Plant Effluent Control Law, Articles 1 and 32 of the former Regulations on Fishery Coordination of Kumamoto Prefecture (Kumamoto Prefecture Regulation No. 31 of 1951; before abolishment by Kumamoto Prefecture Regulation No. 18-2 of 1965), and Article 724 of the Civil Code Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation When a governmental official who is in a position to exercise the public authority of the State or of a public body has, in the course of performing his duties, illegally caused damage to another person either intentionally or negligently, the State or the public body concerned shall be liable to compensate such damage. Article 1 of the Law Concerning Conservation of Water Quality in Public Waters (before amendment by Law No. 108 of 1970) (Purpose) The purpose of this Law shall be to provide for necessary basic matters to conserve water quality in public waters and facilitate resolution of disputes on water pollutions, thereby contributing to the harmonization of industries and the improvement of public health. Article 5 of the Law Concerning Conservation of Water Quality in Public Waters (Designated Water Areas and Water Quality Standards) 1. The Director-General of the Economic Planning Agency shall designate a public water area in which water pollution has caused or would cause considerable damage to relevant industries or has had or would have a significant impact on public health, as a designated water area. 2. When designating a designated water, the Director-General of the Economic Planning Agency shall establish water quality standards for the designated water area. 3. The water quality standards shall not go beyond the necessary level for eliminating or preventing causes required for the designation under Paragraph 1. 4. When designating a designated water and establishing water quality standards, the Director-General of the Economic Planning Agency shall consult with the Water Quality Council. The same shall apply when changing the designation or standards. Article 1 of the Plant Effluent Control Law (Purpose) The purpose of this Law shall be to ensure appropriate treatment of sewage, etc. discharged from business activities by manufacturing industries, etc., with the aim of conserving water quality in public waters. Article 2(2) of the Plant Effluent Control Law (Definitions) In this Law, "specified facilities" shall refer to facilities used for manufacturing industries, etc. from which sewage or wastewater (hereinafter referred to as "sewage, etc.") is discharged, as provided by Cabinet Order. Article 7 of the Plant Effluent Control Law (Order to Change Plan on Method of Treating Sewage, Etc.) 1. Upon receiving notification under Article 4 or the preceding article, the competent minister may, if he considers the water quality of plant effluent, etc. to be failing to meet the standards for the designated water area, within 60 days from the receipt of the notification, order the person who has made the notification to change the plan on the method of treating sewage, etc. 2. Upon receiving notification under Article 4, the competent minister may, if he considers the water quality of plant effluent, etc. to be failing to meet the standards for the designated water area and finds it extremely difficult to make the water quality of plant effluent, etc. meet the water quality standards by an order prescribed under the preceding paragraph, within 60 days from the receipt of the notification, order the person who has made the notification to change or abolish the plan on the establishment or change of specified facilities. Article 12 of the Plant Effluent Control Law (Order to Improve the Method of Treating Sewages, Etc.) The competent minister may, if he considers the water quality of plant effluent, etc. to be failing to meet the standards for the designated water area, order the person who discharges the plant effluent, etc. to the designated water area to improve the method of treating sewage, etc., temporarily stop using the specified facilities or take other necessary measures within a fixed period. Article 1 of the former Regulations on Fishery Coordination of Kumamoto Prefecture (Kumamoto Prefecture Regulation No. 31 of 1951; before abolishment by Kumamoto Prefecture Regulation No. 18-2 of 1965) (Purpose) The purpose of these Regulations shall be to provide for necessary matters in accordance with the provisions of Article 65 of the Fisheries Law (Law No. 267 of 1949; hereinafter referred to as the "Law") and Article 4 of the Law for Conservation of Aquatic Resources (Law No. 313 of 1951; hereinafter referred to as the "Conservation Law"), in order to ensure protection for reproduction of aquatic animals and plants, control fisheries, and make other fishery coordination, while establishing order in fishing industry. Article 32 of the former Regulations on Fishery Coordination of Kumamoto Prefecture (Kumamoto Prefecture Regulation No. 31 of 1951; before abolishment by Kumamoto Prefecture Regulation No. 18-2 of 1965) (Prohibition of Disposal of Hazardous Substances) 1. Nobody shall dispose of substances hazardous to protection for reproduction of aquatic animals and plants or leave things from which such substances would be likely to leak. 2. The governor may order any person who contravenes the preceding paragraph to install necessary equipment to remove hazards or change hazard removal equipment already installed. Article 724 of the Civil Code The right to claim compensation for the damage which has been caused by an unlawful act shall lapse by prescription if not exercised within three years from the time when the injured party or his legal representative became aware of such damage and of the identity of the party who caused it; the same shall apply if twenty years have elapsed from the time when the unlawful act was committed.

1. The judgment of the second instance shall be quashed with respect to the part that upheld the claim made against the jokoku appellants by Jokoku Appellees X22, X23, X53, X54, X55, X64, X65, X66, X67, and X68. 2. With respect to the part mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the koso appeals filed by the jokoku appellees mentioned above shall be dismissed. 3. The judgment of the second instance shall be changed with respect to the part relating to the claim made against the jokoku appellants by Jokoku Appellees X36, X51, and X52 as follows. (1) Each of the jokoku appellants shall pay Jokoku Appellees X36, X51, and X52 250,000 yen and interest thereon at 5% per annum for the period from December 11, 1982, until the completion of payment, respectively. (2) The remaining part of the koso appeal filed against the jokoku appellants by Jokoku Appellees X36, X51, and X52 shall be dismissed. 4. The remaining part of the jokoku appeal filed by the jokoku appellants and the incidental jokoku appeal filed by the incidental jokoku appellants shall be dismissed. 5. The jokoku appellees mentioned in Paragraph 1 shall bear the costs of the koso appeal and the jokoku appeal with respect to the part mentioned in the said paragraph; the whole costs of the lawsuit with respect to the part mentioned in Paragraph 3 shall be divided into ten, one part of which shall be born by the jokoku appellants and the rest by the jokoku appellees mentioned in the said paragraph; the jokoku appellants shall bear the costs of the jokoku appeal with respect to the part mentioned in the preceding paragraph and the incidental jokoku appellants shall bear the costs of the incidental jokoku appeal.

I. Outline of the case 1. The jokoku appellees are the persons who claim to have contracted Minamata disease (45 out of the total 58 persons indicated in the section of the names of patients in the "List of Results" attached to the judgment of the second instance (13 persons numbered 13 to 15, 28, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 52, 53, 58, and 59 are excluded; hereinafter referred to as the "Patients") or their successors. This is a case brought by the jokoku appellees to seek damages from the jokoku appellants, on the ground that the jokoku appellants are liable for damages under Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation for their failure to exercise the authority to enforce regulations in order to prevent the outbreak of Minamata disease and the spread of hazards caused by the disease. 2. The outline of the facts legally determined by the judgment of the second instance is as follows. (1) Minamata disease is a toxic disease of the central nervous system contracted by eating a quantity of fish and shellfish caught in Minamata Bay or its surrounding sea areas. The major symptoms of this disease include sensory disturbance, ataxia, afferent narrowing of visual field, auditory disorder, and language disorder. Patients with Minamata disease show a variety of symptoms, from grave ones to mild ones, and might finally result in death in serious cases. The causative substance of Minamata disease is methyl mercury compound, a kind of organic mercury compound. This substance was produced at the acetaldehyde-manufacturing facility of the F Plant of D Corporation, which had been called E Chisso Hiryo K.K. before the change of its trade name in 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "D"), and contained in effluent discharged from the Plant. Minamata disease was caused by a methyl mercury compound that was accumulated in fish and shellfish and then absorbed in the body and accumulated in organs such as the cerebrum and cerebella of people who ate a quantity of such contaminated fish and/or shellfish, thereby causing disorder to the nerve cells. (2) The Patients once lived in the areas around Minamata Bay and ate fish and shellfish caught in Minamata Bay or its surrounding sea areas. Among the Patients, A (Patient No. 16), X23 (Patient No. 17), X36 (Patient No. 24), X51 (Patient No. 32), X52 (Patient No. 33), B (Patient No. 34), C (Patient No. 45), and X68 (Patient No. 49) had moved by the end of December 1959, and the rest of the Patients moved in January 1960 or thereafter, to the Kansai District. (3) On May 1, 1956, a doctor at the hospital affiliated to the D F Plant notified the Minamata Heath Center of the fact that some people in Minamata City had contracted an unidentified disease with symptoms of brain disorder. This is the first recognition by an official body of the existence of Minamata disease, and it is called the "official discovery" of Minamata disease. Upon receiving the notification, the Minamata Health Center and other bodies conducted investigations and found that the same symptoms had been seen in some people since 1953, and by January 1957, 54 people had contracted and 17 of them died of this disease. (4) Since the official discovery mentioned above, research and study was conducted by the Minamata Health Center, the Minamata Disease Study Group of the Medical School of Kumamoto University (hereinafter referred to as the "Kumamoto University Study Group"), the Health Science Study Group of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (hereinafter referred to as "MHW") (the government ministries and agencies and the government posts shall hereinafter be referred to with the names at that time), and other institutes. Encountering extreme difficulties in identifying the cause of the disease, a tentative suspicion of the relevance between the disease and fish and shellfish was reported at the debriefing session of the Kumamoto University Study Group held in November 1956, and a tentative conclusion to identify eating of fish and shellfish as the cause of the disease was drawn at the joint briefing session held at the National Institute of Public Health in January 1957 where the persons in charge at Jokoku Appellant the National Government and Jokoku Appellant the Prefectural Government participated. Jokoku Appellant Prefecture Government called on the inhabitants in Minamata City not to eat fish and shellfish caught in Minamata Bay and asked local fisheries cooperatives to voluntarily refrain from fishing within Minamata Bay. As a result of these administrative directives, no more patients with this disease were newly found for a short period from December 1956. At the briefing session of the MHW Health Science Study Group held in July 1957, the conclusion was offered that Minamata disease was not an infectious disease but a toxic disease, and it was contracted by eating a quantity of fish and shellfish contaminated by certain chemical substances. However, at that time, the causative substance of Minamata disease had yet to be identified, and substances such as manganese, thallium, and selenium were suspected as possible causes of the disease. At the Committee on Social and Labour Affairs of the House of Councillors held in June 1958, the Director of the Environment and Health Department of MHW stated that the causative substance of Minamata disease was inferred to have discharged from a fertilizer plant located in Minamata City. And in July 1958, the Director of the Public Health Bureau of MHW, in a document issued to the ministries and agencies concerned and Jokoku Appellant the Prefectural Government, drew an inference that Minamata disease was contracted by eating a quantity of fish and shellfish poisoned by certain chemicals contained in waste discharged by a fertilizer plant, and requested that more efficient measures should be taken to cope with Minamata disease. On the other hand, the Director of the Light Industry Bureau of the Ministry of International Trade and Economy (hereinafter referred to as "MITI"), in September 1958, requested MHW not to present an assertive view at the stage when the true cause of Minamata disease had yet to be identified. (5) In August 1958, a new patient with Minamata disease was found. The patient caught a quantity of fish and shellfish in Minamata Bay and ate it. In order to thoroughly extend awareness of the instruction not to eat fish and shellfish caught in Minamata Bay, Jokoku Appellant Prefecture Government again implemented public relations activities directed at local inhabitants and asked local fisheries cooperatives to voluntarily refrain from fishing within Minamata Bay. (6) In September 1958, D moved the point of discharge of effluent from its acetaldehyde-manufacturing facility from Hyakken Port within Minamata Bay to the estuary of Minamata River outside Minamata Bay. In consequence, in March 1959 and thereafter, people who had eaten a quantity of fish and shellfish caught in sea areas outside Minamata Bay were found to show symptoms of Minamata disease, and therefore fish and shellfish caught outside Minamata Bay also started to be considered dangerous. (7) The report published by the Kumamoto University Study Group in March 1959 included a paper that suggested the conformity in symptoms between Minamata disease and organic mercury poisoning called Hunter-Russel syndrome. Through further research and study, the Kumamoto University Study Group presented its view, at its briefing session held on July 22, 1959, that Minamata disease was a nervous system disorder caused by eating fish and shellfish caught in the Minamata region and mercury came to attract extreme attention as a poisonous substance that possibly contaminated fish and shellfish. The Minamata Food Poisoning Task Force was established in January 1959 as a special task force of the Food Sanitation Investigation Council, an advisory body for the Minister of Health and Welfare. On October 6, 1959, the task force presented an interim report that Minamata disease was closely similar to organic mercury pinioning and its most likely cause was mercury. On November 12, 1959, the Food Sanitation Investigation Council concluded, based on this interim report, that the major causative substance of Minamata disease was a kind of organic mercury compound, and reported this conclusion to the Minister of Health and Welfare. The Minamata Food Poisoning Task Force was dissolved at that point in time as it accomplished its objective by making this report. Subsequently, the comprehensive research and study on Minamata disease was undertaken by MHW, MITI, and the Fisheries Agency under the initiative of the Economic Planning Agency. In October 1959, the experiment performed by a doctor at the hospital affiliated to the D F Plant revealed that cats that had been orally given effluent discharged from the acetaldehyde-manufacturing facility of the plant showed the same symptoms as those of Minamata disease. However, D discontinued the experiment and did not publicize its results. (8) By August 1959, 71 people had contracted Minamata disease and 28 of them had died from it, to the knowledge of the jokoku appellants. Around that time, in light of the fact that Minamata disease had become an extremely serious problem in the Minamata region, MITI gave an oral administrative directive to the D F Plant to close the drainage ditch that led to the estuary of Minamata River, speed up efforts to complete effluent treatment equipment, and provide sufficient cooperation for research to identify the cause of the disease. Upon receiving requests from the Director of the Public Health Bureau of the MHW, the Director-General of the Fisheries Agency, etc., during the period from the end of October to November 1959, to immediately take appropriate measures to cope with effluent discharged from the D F Plant, MITI also urged the president of D, in writing, to compete the installation of effluent treatment equipment as soon as possible. In December 1959, effluent purification devices including Cyclator and Sedifloater were installed in the D F Plant. D stressed that these devices were capable of purifying plant effluent, but in fact, these devices were not intended to remove mercury from effluent, which could have been easily understood by persons with some knowledge on chemistry from the design drawings of the devices. (9) In December 1959, an agreement on compensation for damage to fisheries between D and the Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives of Kumamoto Prefecture and an agreement on payment of a solatium between D and the Mutual Aid Society of Families of Patients with Minamata Disease were arranged by mediation of the government of Kumamoto Prefecture, etc. (10) It was understood, as of 1959, that the minimum level of quantity of total mercury (including not only organic mercury compounds but also metal mercury and inorganic mercury compounds) that could be analyzed by means of a general quantitative analysis method was 0.01ppm. However, the Tokyo Industrial Laboratory of the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology succeeded, by late November 1959, in developing a unique method to quantitatively analyze total mercury to the level of 0.001ppm. From that time until August 1960, the laboratory conducted, at the request of MITI, quantitative analysis of total mercury contained in effluent discharged from the D F Plant, and reported test results indicating that total mercury of 0.002 to 0.084ppm was detected from plant effluent. (11) As of the end of November 1959 at the latest, the jokoku appellants were able to recognize, with high probability, that the causative substance of Minamata disease was a kind of organic mercury compound discharged from the acetaldehyde-manufacturing facility of the D F Plant. Furthermore, at that time at the latest, the jokoku appellants were capable of quantitatively analyzing a small amount of mercury contained in effluent discharged from the D F Plant and could have easily known that the effluent purification equipment installed by D had not been intended to remove mercury. (12) In May 1968, D stopped manufacturing acetaldehyde at the F Plant, and in consequence, a methyl mercury compound was no longer discharged from the plant. In September 1968, Jokoku Appellant the National Government presented a government view that Minamata disease was caused by a methyl mercury compound produced at the acetaldehyde-manufacturing facility of the D F Plant. In 1969, Minamata Bay and its surrounding sea areas were designated as a designated water area under the Water Quality Laws mentioned later. II. Concerning the ground for Jokoku Appeal Case 2001(O)No. 1194 argued by the attorneys for jokoku appeal TSUZUKI Hiroshi, et al. 1. In a civil lawsuit, appeal may be filed to the Supreme Court only if there are any grounds for jokoku appeal prescribed in Article 312(1) or (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The attorneys for jokoku appeal allege, as a ground for jokoku appeal, lack of reason or inconsistency in reasons for the judgment of the second instance. However, the alleged ground is in effect a claim of mere violation of law and therefore it does not fall under any reasons prescribed in the said paragraphs. 2. After considering the argument, however, we decide to make judgment ex officio. Given the facts mentioned above, the court of the second instance found it illegal for the jokoku appellants to have failed to exercise the authority to enforce regulations on effluent from the D F Plant in January 1960 and thereafter, and held the jokoku appellants liable to pay damages under Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation to people who had contracted Minamata disease and who suffered health hazards by eating fish and shellfish caught in Minamata Bay or its surrounding sea areas in January 1960 and thereafter. For the reasons mentioned later, this opinion of the second instance can be accepted as justifiable. Consequently, even though people who had moved out of the areas around Minamata Bay by the end of December 1959 also suffered from Minamata disease, it is impossible to find any causal relation between their damage and the jokoku appellants' illegal omission. However, the court of the second instance partially upheld the claim for damages made by A, X23, X36, X51, X52, B, C, and X68, while acknowledging the fact that these patients had moved out of the areas around Minamata Bay by the end of December 1959. In this respect, we should inevitably say that the judgment of the second instance contains an apparent violation of laws that has affected the judgment regarding the existence of any causal relation between the jokoku appellants' illegal omission and these patients' damage. In consequence, the judgment of the second instance should inevitably be quashed with respect to the part that upheld the claim made against the jokoku appellants by the eight patients mentioned above or their successors, i.e. Jokoku Appellees X22, X23, X36, X51, X52, X53, X54, X55, X64, X65, X66, X67, and X68 (except for the part relating to the claim made by Jokoku Appellees X36, X51, and X52 as successors of D (Patient No. 31)). The judgment of the first instance that had dismissed the claim made by these jokoku appellees with respect to the said part can be accepted as conclusion, and therefore the koso appeal filed by these jokoku appellees with respect to the said part should be dismissed. III. Concerning Grounds 3 and 4 for the petition for accepting for Jokoku Appeal Case 2001(Ju)No. 1172 argued by the attorneys for jokoku appeal TSUZUKI Hiroshi, et al. 1. The Law Concerning Conservation of Water Quality in Public Waters (before amendment by Law No. 108 of 1970; hereinafter referred to as the "Water Quality Conservation Law") and the Law for Control of Plant Effluent (hereinafter referred to as the "Plant Effluent Control Law") were promulgated on December 25, 1958, and put into force on March 1, 1959 (these laws shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Water Quality Laws"; they were abolished upon the enforcement of the Water Pollution Control Law promulgated in December 1970). The purpose of the Water Quality Conservation Law is to provide for necessary matters to conserve water quality in public waters, thereby contributing to the harmonization of industries and the improvement in public health (Article 1), and the purpose of the Plant Effluent Control Law is to ensure appropriate treatment of sewage, etc. discharged from business activities by manufacturing industries, etc., with the aim of conserving water quality in public waters (Article 1). The outline of plant effluent regulations under the Water Quality Laws is as follows. The Director-General of the Economic Planning Agency shall designate a public water area in which water pollution has caused or would cause considerable damage to relevant industries or has had or would have a significant impact on public health, as a "designated water area" (Article 5(1) of the Water Quality Conservation Law), and establish water quality standards for the designated water areas (Article 5(2) of the said law). Water quality standards shall refer to acceptable pollution limits for water discharged to a designated water area from plants where "specified facilities" are installed (Article 3(2) of the said law). "Specified facilities" shall refer to facilities used for manufacturing industries, etc. from which sewage or wastewater (hereinafter referred to as "sewage, etc.") is discharged, as provided by Cabinet Order (Article 2(2) of the Plant Effluent Control Law). The competent minister (designated by Cabinet Order depending on the type of specified facilities under Article 21(1) of the said law) has the authority to enforce regulations on plant effluent discharged from specified facilities. More specifically, the competent minister may, if he considers the water quality of plant effluent, etc. to be failing to meet the standards for the designated water area, order the person who discharges such effluent to change the plan on the method of treating sewage, etc. or change or abolish the plan on the establishment or change of specified facilities (Article 7 of the said law), and order such person to improve the method of treating sewage, etc., temporarily stop using the specified facilities or take other necessary measures within a fixed period (Article 12 of the said law). A person who has violated such an order issued by the competent minister shall be punished (Article 23 of the said law). 2. The Regulations on Fishery Coordination of Kumamoto Prefecture (Kumamoto Prefecture Regulation No. 31 of 1951, abolished by Kumamoto Prefecture Regulation No. 18-2 of 1965; hereinafter referred to as the "Prefectural Regulations on Fishery Coordination") were established in accordance with Article 65 of the Fisheries Law (before amendment by Law No. 156 of 1962) and Article 4 of the Law for Conservation of Aquatic Resources. The purpose of these regulations is to provide for necessary matters in order to ensure protection for reproduction of aquatic animals and plants, control fisheries, and make other fishery coordination, while establishing order in the fishing industry (Article 1 of the Prefectural Regulations on Fishery Coordination). Under the Prefectural Regulations on Fishery Coordination, nobody shall dispose of substances hazardous to protection for reproduction of aquatic animals and plants or leave things from which such substances would leak, and the governor may order any person who contravenes this provision to install the necessary equipment to remove hazards or change hazard removal equipment already installed (Article 32 of the said regulations). A person who has violated this provision or order shall be punished (Article 58 of the said regulations). 3. Given the facts mentioned above, the court of the second instance found it illegal under Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation for Jokoku Appellant the National Government to have failed to exercise regulatory authorities under the Water Quality Laws, and for Jokoku Appellant the Prefectural Government to have failed to exercise regulatory authorities under the Prefectural Regulations on Fishery Coordination, and held both jokoku appellants liable to pay damages under the said paragraph to people who had contracted Minamata disease and who suffered health hazards by eating fish and shellfish caught in Minamata Bay or its surrounding sea areas in January 1960 and thereafter. The jokoku appellants argue that the court of the second instance has wrongly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Water Quality Laws and the Prefectural Regulations on Fishery Coordination as well as Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation, and therefore its judgment violates laws and ordinances. 4. Here, we make examination on this issue. (1) It is appropriate to construe that if the failure of national officials or officials of public bodies to exercise the authority to enforce regulations is deemed to be beyond the allowable limits and therefore extremely unreasonable in light of the purport and purpose of the laws and ordinances that are the basis of the authority and the nature of the authority as well as specific circumstances concerned, such failure is illegal, in relation to people who have suffered damage due to the failure, for the purpose of the application of Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation (See 1986(O)No. 1152, judgment of the Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court of November 24, 1989, Minshu Vol. 43, No. 10, at 1169; 1989(O)No. 1260, judgment of the Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court of June 23, 1995, Minshu Vol. 49, No. 6, at 1600). (2) According to this construction, first, we make examination on the liability of Jokoku Appellant the National Government. (A) Under the regulations of the Water Quality Laws, the National Government is required to exercise its regulatory authorities by: (1) designating a particular public water area in which water pollution has caused or would cause considerable damage to relevant industries or has had or would have a significant impact on public health as a designated water area and, then, establishing water quality standards (acceptable pollution limits for water discharged to the designated water area from plants where specified facilities are installed) and designating facilities from which sewage, etc. is discharged as specified facilities; and, after taking these measures, (2) if the water quality of plant effluent, etc. to be failing to meet the standards for the designated water area, having the competent minister order the person who discharges such effluent to improve the method of treating sewage, etc., temporarily stop using the specified facilities or take other necessary measures under Articles 7 and 12 of the Plant Effluent Control Law, for the purpose of conserving water quality,. This authority should be exercised in a timely and appropriate manner, aiming at protecting the life and health of people living in areas that might suffer water quality deterioration in the designated water area. (B) According to the facts mentioned above, as of the end of November 1959, (1) at least about three years had passed since the official discovery of Minamata disease on May 1, 1956, and during this period, there was the continued possibility that serious and grave damage might be caused to the lives and health of people who ate fish and shellfish caught in Minamata Bay and its surrounding sea areas, and Jokoku Appellant the National Government recognized that a large number of people had contracted Minamata disease and a considerable number of them had died of the disease, (2) Jokoku Appellant the National Government was able to recognize, with high probability, that the causative substance of Minamata disease was a kind of organic mercury compound discharged from the acetaldehyde-manufacturing facility of the D F Plant, and (3) Jokoku Appellant the National Government was capable of quantitatively analyzing a small amount of mercury contained in effluent discharged from the D F Plant. As also mentioned above, Jokoku Appellant the National Government could have easily known that the effluent purification equipment installed by D in December 1959 had not been intended to remove mercury. Considering these facts, as of the end of November 1959, Jokoku Appellant the National Government could have and should have immediately taken the measures that was required to exercise its regulatory authorities vested by the Water Quality Laws, by designating Minamata Bay and its surrounding sea areas as a designated water area, establishing water quality standards so as to prevent plant effluent discharged to the designated water area from containing a detectable amount of mercury or its compounds, and designating the acetaldehyde-manufacturing facility as a specified facility. It is reasonable to conclude that, even if the time necessary for taking these measures were taken into consideration, the Minister of International Trade and Economy who was the competent minister for this issue, at the end of December 1959 at the latest, could have exercised the regulatory authorities and ordered D to improve the method of treating sewage, etc., temporarily stop using the specified facilities or take other necessary measures, and in light of the seriousness of health hazards caused by Minamata disease, the minister should have immediately exercised the authority. It is also obvious that if the authority had been exercised at that time, the subsequent spread of Minamata disease could have been prevented. (C) Comprehensively considering these circumstances, the failure to exercise the regulatory authorities under the Water Quality Laws in January 1960 and thereafter is extremely unreasonable in light of the purport and purpose of the Water Quality Laws that are the basis of the authorities and the nature of the authorities, and therefore illegal for the purpose of the application of Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation. Therefore, the judgment of the second instance that held Jokoku Appellant the National Government liable for damages under the said paragraph can be accepted as justifiable, and the Jokoku Appellant the National Government's argument cannot be accepted. (3) Next, we make examination on the liability of Jokoku Appellant the Prefectural Government. According to the facts mentioned above, we conclude that the governor of Kumamoto Prefecture recognized or could have recognized the circumstances concerning Minamata disease as Jokoku Appellant the National Government recognized or could have recognized. We also conclude that, although the direct purpose of the Prefectural Regulations on Fishery Coordination is to ensure protection for reproduction of aquatic animals and plants, these Regulations also ultimately aim to protect the health of people who eat such animals and plants. Therefore, we can accept the reasoning of the court of the second instance that the governor should have exercised the regulatory authorities under Article 32 of the Prefectural Regulations on Fishery Coordination by the end of December 1959 and the governor's failure to exercise the authorities was extremely unreasonable, and can uphold the second instance's conclusion that Jokoku Appellant the Prefectural Government liable for damages under Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation. . Jokoku Appellant the Prefectural Government's argument in this respect cannot be accepted. IV. Concerning Ground 5 for the petition for accepting for Jokoku Appeal Case 2001(Ju)No. 1172 argued by the attorneys for jokoku appeal TSUZUKI Hiroshi, et al. 1. The claim made against the jokoku appellants by the jokoku appellees (except for the part to be dismissed due to the reason mentioned in II above) raises a question as to the applicability of extinctive prescription under Article 4 of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation and the second sentence of Article 724 of the Civil Code. The court of the second instance denied the applicability of extinctive prescription. The jokoku appellants argue that the judgment of the second instance has wrongly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions and therefore violates the laws. 2. Here, we make examination on this issue. (1) The second sentence of Article 724 of the Civil Code provides for the period of extinctive prescription as "twenty years from the time when the unlawful act was committed." In the case of an unlawful act from which damage arose when the act was committed, the period of extinctive prescription shall start from the time when the act was committed. However, in the case of an unlawful act from which damage, due to its nature, would arise after a considerable period of time has passed since the termination of the act of causing the damage, such as damage due to substances that are harmful to human health if they are accumulated in the body and damage that would come to appear after a certain incubation period, the period of extinctive prescription should be deemed to start from the time when all or part of damage has arisen from the act. This is because it would be significantly cruel to any affected party to allow the period of extinctive prescription to start before damage arises from an unlawful act, and the affecting party should expect, in light of the nature of damage that could be caused by its own act, that any affected party would appear and claim damages after a considerable period of time has passed. The judgment of the second instance that goes along with this reasoning can be accepted. The jokoku appellants' argument cannot be accepted. (2) According to this reasoning, the time when each of the Patients moved out of the areas around Minamata Bay should be regarded as the time when the act of causing damage was terminated for the Patient. However, some patients with Minamata disease developed the disease after an incubation period, and such patients with delayed-onset Minamata disease started to show symptoms of Minamata disease within four years after they had stopped eating fish and shellfish caught in Minamata Bay or its surrounding sea areas. Having found these facts, the court of the second instance concluded that the period of extinctive prescription for these Patients should start from the time when at least four years have passed since they had moved out of the areas around Minamata Bay. This conclusion of the second instance can be accepted, and the jokoku appellants' argument in this respect cannot be accepted. V. Concerning other grounds for the petition for accepting for Jokoku Appeal Case 2001(Ju)No. 1172 argued by the attorneys for jokoku appeal TSUZUKI Hiroshi, et al. The fact findings made by the court of the second instance with respect to the issue argued by the jokoku appellants can be accepted as justifiable based on the evidence cited in the judgment of the second instance, and therefore the judgment of the second instance can be accepted. The judgment of the second instance does not contain such illegality as argued by the jokoku appellants, and the jokoku appellants' argument cannot be accepted. VI. Concerning the ground for Incidental Jokoku Appeal Case 2001(O)No. 1196 argued by the attorneys for incidental jokoku appeal MATSUMOTO Takeo, et al. In a civil lawsuit, appeal may be filed to the Supreme Court only if there are any grounds for jokoku appeal prescribed in Article 312(1) or (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The attorneys for incidental jokoku appeal allege, as a ground for incidental jokoku appeal, lack of reason or inconsistency in reasons for the judgment of the second instance. However, the alleged ground is in effect a claim of error in fact finding or mere violation of law and therefore it does not fall under any of the reasons prescribed in the said paragraphs. VII. Concerning the ground for the petition for accepting for Incidental Jokoku Appeal Case 2001(O)No. 1174 argued by the attorneys for incidental jokoku appeal MATSUMOTO Takeo, et al. The fact findings made by the court of the second instance with respect to the issue argued by the incidental jokoku appellants can be accepted as justifiable based on the evidence cited in the judgment of the second instance, and therefore the judgment of the second instance can be accepted. The judgment of the second instance does not contain such illegality as argued by the incidental jokoku appellants, and the incidental jokoku appellants' argument cannot be accepted. VIII. Conclusion For the reasons mentioned above, the jokoku appeal filed by the jokoku appellants is well-grounded to the extent mentioned in II above, and therefore it is appropriate to dismiss the judgment of the second instance with respect to the part mentioned in Paragraph 1 of the main text of the judgment and change the judgment of the second instance with respect to the part in Paragraph 3 of the main text of the judgment. The remaining parts of the jokoku appeal are groundless and therefore shall be dismissed. The incidental jokoku appeal filed by the incidental jokoku appellants is groundless and therefore shall be dismissed. Therefore, the judgment was rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices.

Justice KITAGAWA Hiroharu Justice FUKUDA Hiroshi Justice TAKII Shigeo Justice TSUNO Osamu