[What kind of incident/how the incident happened]

Background and Revelation of the Incident

Since around 2005, C-Tech (a subsidiary of Chubu Electric Power Co., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "Chubu Electric Power Co., Ltd.") has been planning a huge wind power generation facility on a mountain ridge connecting Kamishizu-cho, Ogaki-shi, and Sekigahara-cho, Fuwa-gun, Gifu Prefecture. . The original plan was to build 16 wind turbines with a height of 130m and a blade length of 50m (diameter of 100m). When local residents were approached for an on-site survey based on this plan, they asked questions such as, "What is the natural environment like in your hometown? What is the danger of landslides due to road expansion? What are the health hazards caused by low-frequency waves, which is becoming a nationwide problem?" I felt uneasy and held a study session in my hometown. (June and July 2013)

▲Composite photo created by the business operator for a resident briefing session. The large windmills that stand in a row on the ridge are intimidating to the residents.

In August 2013, the Ogaki Police Station Security Division (Public Safety) called Shisha through the Chubu Electric Power Gifu Branch. There, personal information such as “names,” “educational background,” “work history,” and “medical history” of two local residents who held a study session and two Ogaki citizens who were acquaintances and were involved in denuclearization activities and peace movements, as well as local information. Provided businesses with information about law firms that play a central role in various movements. At that time, "If you connect with such a person, it will be troublesome", "By collaborating with such a person and the Gifu collaboration law office, if it develops into a large-scale citizen movement, your company's business may not progress. "No," "This is an act that the Ogaki Police Station wants to avoid, and we would like to maintain a peaceful Ogaki City by exchanging information in the future, so we ask for your cooperation."

In July 2014, after four such “opinion exchanges,” this fact came to light in an Asahi Shimbun scoop.

* The "minutes" created by Shisha, which recorded the "exchange of opinions", and related materials were obtained by the plaintiffs through evidence preservation procedures.

"Speaking" Association for the Protection of Freedom

https://monoiujiyu-ogaki.jimdofree.com/

≫Materials related to the case (opinion exchange record = "minutes", collection of basic materials)

Correspondence of the four concerned and the defense team, reaction of the police side

After the incident was discovered, the parties took various actions while consulting with their lawyers. With a view to litigation claiming national compensation, requests for disclosure of personal information based on the Gifu Prefectural Ordinance on the Protection of Personal Information, submission of protests and requests to the Gifu Prefectural Police and the Gifu Prefectural Public Safety Commission, filing of complaints based on Article 79 of the Police Law, local public officials I filed a criminal complaint against the law. The Gifu Prefectural Police and Prefectural Public Safety Commission, which initially did not respond, suddenly responded in November 2014 that it was part of normal police work. In addition, when this incident was brought up at the Cabinet Committee of the House of Councillors in 2015, the director of the National Police Agency's Security Bureau generalized, but said, ``There are various projects in the jurisdiction, such as wind power generation projects, road construction projects, and so on. From the perspective of maintaining public safety and order, we are interested in the possibility of troubles that may arise due to … etc. … We exchange opinions with related business operators as necessary. It is a part of police work." They defiantly stated that collecting information on residents and citizens and providing that personal information to business operators was necessary from the standpoint of maintaining public order, and that it was normal police work.

On the other hand, in response to requests for disclosure of personal information based on the Gifu Prefectural Ordinance on the Protection of Personal Information, we decided to “refuse to respond to the existence or non-disclosure of personal information”. “Whether or not a specific individual is the target of information gathering activities by the police is information related to the targets (or policies, concerns) of information gathering activities by the police. , It is recognized that there is a good reason for the executing agency to recognize that it may hinder the maintenance of public safety and order, such as suppression or investigation.” Even after becoming a defendant in the trial, this stance continued as a refusal to admit or deny the facts.

to file a lawsuit

(1) State Compensation Lawsuit (December 21, 2016)

The problem isn't that Ogaki police officers just happened to go too far. Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Police Law states, "The activities of the police should be strictly limited to the scope of the duties set forth in the preceding paragraph. In reality, the police as a whole, especially the public security police, with the National Police Agency at the top, ignore this and We are moving with the attitude that we can do anything if we raise "maintenance of public safety and order" in Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Police Law. Arbitrarily collecting and accumulating information, "utilizing" that information, and even using tangible force against citizens ("without burdock" in sit-ins, yelling out, and even arresting in the ditching incident). I'm listening. The four named citizens became plaintiffs and filed a lawsuit claiming state compensation at the Gifu District Court.

▲2016.12.21 Lawsuit action. In front of Gifu District Court

(2) Additional lawsuit, request for deletion of personal information (January 29, 2018)

This incident was not conducted by the "local government police (so-called criminal police)" as part of a criminal investigation, and the national police (public security police) had no legal basis to monitor specific people and collect information. , was accumulated, and the police's personal evaluation was added, and it was distorted and provided to the company. The information (“meeting minutes”) that emerged during the preservation of evidence is only the tip of the iceberg, even if it is limited to the personal information of the four plaintiffs. A large amount of personal information has been collected on many citizens who have been "targeted", and judging from the way public security police are organized, that information should be accumulated in the National Police Agency. Currently, public security police are collecting and accumulating information on citizens without any legal basis, and arbitrarily "using" that information. It is unacceptable to leave the state where no control is applied to the collection, retention and use of personal information by the public security police. Since there is no legal basis for collection or retention, the plaintiff's personal information should be deleted.

(1) and (2) were decided to be merged at oral argument on July 31, 2019.

[First trial decision]

On February 21, 2022, the Gifu District Court handed down a first-instance judgment.

▲2021.2.21 In front of the Gifu District Court

Recognized

・Even if the information is publicized by the person (e.g., distributed in a leaflet), information related to thoughts and beliefs is highly protected privacy information.

・The provision of information to C-Tech by the Ogaki Police Station is illegal under the National Insurance Act. The specific mode of actively and intentionally providing information continuously without necessity is malicious.

・The defendant Gifu Prefecture shall pay damages of 550,000 yen to each plaintiff uniformly (without distinguishing by the content or nature of the information provided).

Not Recognized

・Illegality of information gathering by public security police (information can be gathered based on abstract “necessity” based on Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Police Law)

・Deletion of the personal information of the plaintiffs held by the National Police Agency and the Gifu Prefectural Police ("rejected" without conducting a substantive trial)

To appeal

The first trial decision has the following problems, and the plaintiffs of the first trial appealed to the Nagoya High Court.

(1) While recognizing that the personal information possessed by the police and used in the act of providing it is privacy information that is protected under the Constitution, only the act of providing it is illegal, and the act of collecting and possessing it is tolerated.

(2) Accepting human rights violations by public authorities (collection of personal information by the public security police) based solely on the Police Law, which stipulates "organizations," goes against the principle of the rule of law. If the daily collection of personal information by the public security police is carried out without legal and institutional restraints, it will atrophy citizens' speech and expression activities and shake the foundation of democracy.

(3) There was actually an act of providing illegal information. As long as the National Police Agency and Gifu Prefectural Police continue to hold the plaintiffs' personal information, the same thing can happen, so the plaintiffs' personal information should be deleted.

Defendant Gifu Prefecture has also appealed against the lost portion.

[Use of funds]

Expenses for written opinions, actual expenses for legal counsel conferences and document copies, transportation expenses for appearing in court, etc.

(In the case of surplus: At present, the defense team is working on a “hand lunch”. If there is surplus, I would like to thank you even a little.)

[Introduction of the attorney in charge]

Hideki Yamada Attorney at Law (Gifu Bar Association, Gifu Collaboration Seino Law Office)

Hiroaki Okamoto Attorney at Law (Gifu Bar Association, Gifu Godo Law Office)

[Request for donation]

Surveillance by the police to collect information has the effect of curtailing freedom of speech, and it can lead to a society in which those in power control information and the public is not allowed to speak freely. This trial is a trial to regain the freedom to "speak." Thank you for your support.