Introduction

The plaintiff, Junpei Yasuda, was held captive by armed groups in Syria for over three years, and returned to Japan from Syria via Turkey on October 23, 2018.

After that, he planned to travel abroad with his family and applied for a passport, but the government rejected it. Since then, Yasuda was effectively unable to leave Japan.

This lawsuit is questioning the issue of the government's decision to refuse to issue a passport (ordinary passport) to Mr. Yasuda. For details of the issues, please refer to the complaint filed at the bottom of this page or uploaded to the lawsuit documents.

If the government were to freely decide who was allowed to leave the country and who was not, the freedom of movement guaranteed by the Constitution would be in jeopardy.

This is not just an issue for Yasuda, but a highly public trial that deals with an important topic for the entire nation. For this reason, we decided to make information about the trial public through CALL4 and to raise donations.

Issues at issue

In this trial, Mr. Yasuda is concerned about the following two major points:

First, Yasuda has raised concerns that in refusing to issue him a regular passport, the government is likely to have made an arbitrary and fact-unbased decision, taking into account the series of events that occurred in Syria.

Next, some of the provisions in the Passport Act which stipulate the grounds for refusing to issue a general passport (if entry is denied by a country, the country can refuse to issue a passport, resulting in an applicant for a general passport being unable to travel to any country) are based on the situation at the time the Act was enacted in 1951 and are now at risk of unduly hindering the realization of the freedom to travel abroad, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Let's take a closer look at each one.

1. Regarding the government's arbitrary determination of facts

On January 4, 2019, Mr. Yasuda applied for a reissue of his passport in order to travel abroad with his family, but on July 10, 2019, the Minister of Foreign Affairs refused to issue his passport for the following reasons.

"On October 24, 2018, you were barred from entering Turkey for five years in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Republic of Turkey, and are therefore inadmissible to enter the country. As a result, you fall under Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Law, which places restrictions on the issuance of ordinary passports, etc."

Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act, which served as the basis for this disposition, states that a passport may be refused if the person is "a person who is not permitted to enter the country under the laws and regulations in force at the destination country," and stipulates that the Minister of Foreign Affairs or a consular officer may refuse to issue a regular passport or add destinations to an individual to whom this applies.

However, Yasuda himself was never subjected to entry ban procedures by the Republic of Turkey based on its laws and regulations that same year.

In other words, there is a risk that the government may have assumed that an entry ban had been imposed based on speculation and Mr. Yasuda's past actions, despite there being no factual evidence to support this.

2. Unconstitutionality of Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Law

One of the issues in this lawsuit, the defense team believes, is that Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act, which stipulates the grounds for refusing to issue a passport, violates Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, which is understood to guarantee the freedom of overseas travel.

When the Passport Law was enacted in 1951, the destinations permitted by ordinary passports were limited to individually designated countries, and were only valid for one round trip, so in principle an application for a passport was required each time one traveled. For example, if the destination on a passport was the United States, one could only go to the United States, and was required to surrender the passport each time one returned home.

However, as the number of Japanese people traveling abroad increased, the government was forced to change the way it operated. After numerous legal amendments, the Passport Law was enacted in 1988 (Heisei 1), which allows for a comprehensive definition of destinations as "all areas other than those designated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs," and makes multiple round trips the rule.

As mentioned above, Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the current Passport Law provides that "persons who are not permitted to enter the country due to the laws and regulations in force in the country of their destination" are grounds for refusing to issue a passport. And because of this provision, if a country refuses entry to an applicant, that country can refuse to issue a passport, and as a result, applicants for ordinary passports will not be able to travel to any countries.

The problem is that this provision was in place when the Passport Act was enacted in 1951, when the destinations permitted by a passport were limited to one country. In fact, the number of ordinary passports issued has increased by more than 400 times from 1951 (Showa 26), when the Passport Act was enacted, to 2018 (Heisei 30), while the number of foreigners visiting Japan and Japanese nationals leaving the country has increased by nearly 100 times from 1964 (Showa 39) to 2018 (Heisei 30).

In this way, the status of overseas travel has changed significantly since the legislation was enacted. Furthermore, as overseas travel has become more common, the importance of direct contact with people and things across borders has also increased.

Considering the current importance of freedom of international travel, the existence of the above provision, which allows a passport to be withheld if a person is denied entry to even one country, is clearly outdated.

Based on the above, Yasuda and his legal team filed a lawsuit against the government on January 9, 2020.

1. Mr. Yasuda has never been banned from entering Turkey, and does not meet the requirements for refusal of passport issuance under Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Law.
   
   
2. Article 13, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Passport Law, which allows for uniform restrictions on travel abroad solely on the grounds of a ban on entry from a certain country, infringes on the freedom of travel outside of Japan and violates Articles 22 and 13 of the Constitution.
   
   
3. Even if there were an entry ban from the Turkish government, excluding Turkey from travel destinations and not issuing a passport would violate Articles 22 and 13 of the Constitution.

Based on the above grounds, we filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the refusal to issue a passport and the obligation to issue a regular passport.

We will be updating the lawsuit documents page with further details of our arguments and the government's counterarguments, so please check it out.

Use of funds

The interpretation of the Passport Act will be important in this trial, and we will need to obtain the cooperation of researchers and other experts. Case studies from other countries will also be essential.

This kind of work requires a lot of money, but we do not have sufficient funds. The reason we decided to raise funds through crowdfunding is because we needed to cover the various expenses necessary to continue full legal activities, especially the costs of having experts prepare written opinions.

The outcome of this trial will affect the freedom of movement of many people in the future.

Through this trial, we would like to consider together with our supporters that government decisions should be based on facts and not speculation, and how important it is for us to live in a society where freedom of movement is protected.

Both the plaintiffs and our legal team will do our utmost to ensure a good outcome in court, so we ask for your support.

<Request for further support for the appeal>

The first instance ruling was handed down on January 25, 2024, and the decision not to issue a regular passport was set aside as illegal and amounted to an abuse or deviation from the Minister of Foreign Affairs' discretionary power.

On the other hand, the requirement to issue a regular passport as requested by Yasuda was denied, and Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act was ruled to be constitutional.

In the appeal hearing, we plan to submit new opinions by constitutional scholars to prove that Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Law is unconstitutional. In addition, in response to the defendant (the state) filing an appeal, we plan to increase the number of our legal team and conduct defense activities with a more robust system.

However, in order to carry out the above-mentioned legal activities, we expect to need approximately 1 million yen, but we do not currently have sufficient funds and would like to ask for new donations.

Your donation will be used to cover the costs of preparing a new opinion and legal fees.

Introducing the Lawyers

Attorney at Law, Makoto Iwai (Kandabashi Law Office)
Attorney at Law, Taeyoung Han (Kandabashi Law Office)
Attorney Masako Suzuki (Izumibashi Law Office)
Attorney at Law, Motoya Tsuchida (Yuri Law Office)
Attorney Ryuichi Endo (Yuri Law Office)
Attorney at Law, Yukako Usuki (Nagawa & Okamura Law Office)

Message from the lawyer