Introduction: "Even if it's disclosed, will I still be unable to accept it?"

What if, even if the disclosure of administrative documents is permitted, you had to pay millions of yen to receive them? And what if you couldn't even object to how the fees were calculated? Even with an information disclosure system in place, it can be blocked by a "money barrier," preventing you from actually obtaining the information you need.

Public documents are "intellectual resources shared by the nation" (Article 1 of the Public Records Management Act). The Information Disclosure Act grants everyone the right to request disclosure of administrative documents. However, in this case, a disclosure fee of 3,245,350 yen was quoted for electronic data that could fit on just one CD-ROM.

This lawsuit seeks to explore legal options for challenging fee amounts and to determine how fees can be made more accessible, in order to prevent information disclosure from being hindered by a "money barrier."

▲Notification of Decision to Disclose Administrative Documents. The disclosure implementation fee is 3,245,350 yen.

Summary of the case

What is the use of bidding data?

Professor Jun Nakabayashi (Graduate School of Economics, Kyoto University) conducts research that statistically analyzes large amounts of publicly available bidding data released by the national and local governments to identify bids that may be rigged.

The effectiveness of that research came to light in February 2025 with the Oita City government-led bid-rigging scandal. At a press conference following the arrest of Oita City officials in connection with the bid-rigging case, the mayor revealed that "a year before the incident came to light, Professor Nakabayashi's research group had pointed out that there was a high possibility of bid-rigging in Oita City's bidding processes."

Analyzing bidding data over a long period of time can help identify unusual bids and prevent wasteful spending and fraud.

Disclosure on a single CD-ROM costs 3.24 million yen.

Such research requires at least 10 years' worth of bidding data. However, the period for which data is publicly available on national and local government websites is often limited to about one to three years, so obtaining the necessary historical data requires filing a request for information disclosure.

This time, Professor Nakabayashi requested the Hokkaido Development Bureau to disclose "bidding ranking certificates," which are construction bidding result data for the past 10 years. The information in question amounts to 15,732 A4 pages in paper form, but if converted to PDF data, it would fit on a single CD-ROM. However, the disclosure fee quoted by the Hokkaido Development Bureau was 3,245,350 yen.

Why did it become so expensive?

The Enforcement Order of the Information Disclosure Act stipulates that when electronic data is provided on a CD-ROM, a fee of "210 yen per file" will be added. However, there is no clear definition of how to count "one file".

While other regional development bureaus treat a year's worth of construction data as a single file, the Hokkaido Development Bureau counted each construction project as a separate file. As a result, 10 years' worth of data was compiled into 15,455 files, causing the fees to balloon to several million yen. On the other hand, for paper documents, the fee is generally 10 yen per sheet, and in this case, the payment would be 157,020 yen. Thus, a 20-fold price difference arises due to the difference in media, but structured electronic data that can be processed by a program is essential for Professor Nakabayashi's research.

The option of competing over fees was also closed off.

Professor Nakabayashi has previously filed an appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act to dispute a similar fee amount.

However, the government dismissed the appeal, stating that the notification of the fee amount was not an administrative disposition subject to review.

Professor Nakabayashi decided to take legal action to change the situation where he had to choose between accepting and paying the amount set by the government, or giving up on disclosing the information, and being unable to legally challenge the calculation of the fees even though he thought it was wrong.

Issues in the trial

This trial revolves around two main points of contention:

1. Can the person requesting disclosure legally challenge whether the fee is appropriate?

Up until now, the government has maintained the position that, regarding whether the disclosure fee is appropriate, the requester cannot challenge it in the Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board or in court. As a result, the requester had no choice but to accept and pay the amount unilaterally notified by the government, or to give up on receiving the information altogether.

In this lawsuit, the primary claim is an "annulment lawsuit" based on Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act, in order to clarify that those requesting disclosure have the right to challenge whether the fee amount is appropriate. An annulment lawsuit is a lawsuit seeking the annulment of an illegal or unjust administrative disposition by an administrative agency. The plaintiff argues that since information cannot be disclosed without paying the fee amount determined by the government, the notification of the disclosure fee amount is an administrative act (administrative disposition) that directly affects the rights and obligations of citizens (those requesting disclosure). Based on this, the plaintiff first seeks to have the determination of the disclosure fee amount annulled.

However, as a backup in case the court determines that the notification of the fee amount does not constitute an "administrative disposition" subject to an action for annulment, a "party action" based on Article 4 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act has also been filed. A party action is a lawsuit seeking the court's judgment on a legal relationship under public law, rather than the annulment of an administrative disposition.

This preliminary claim seeks confirmation that there is no obligation to pay fees exceeding the fair value.

2. How should "easy-to-use fees" be determined?

The Information Disclosure Act requires that disclosure fees be "within the scope of actual costs" and that consideration be given to making them as affordable as possible.

The fee for this case, "10 years' worth of bidding ranking certificates for 15,455 construction projects, totaling 15,455 files, therefore the disclosure fee is 3,245,350 yen," is argued to be contrary to the spirit of this law for the following reasons.

◼︎ It is illogical for different government agencies to count "one file" in different ways.

Neither the Information Disclosure Act nor its enforcement regulations provide a clear definition of "one file" when calculating fees. However, this does not mean that administrative agencies are allowed to arbitrarily subdivide file data and count, for example, information on a single A4 sheet of paper as one file, as in this case.

Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the Public Records Management Act stipulates that administrative documents that are closely related to each other should be compiled into a single collection (administrative document file). In addition, as a general rule, the retention period for bidding-related documents from the same fiscal year expires simultaneously.

Given the nature of these documents, it is argued that in this case, at least one year's worth of "bidding ranking certificates" should be treated as a single file. According to this standard, the disclosure fee for one year's worth of information (one file) would be 210 yen, and 2100 yen for 10 years (1900 yen after deducting the 300 yen in revenue stamp fees paid when requesting disclosure).

◼︎ It is far removed from the actual cost of copying electronic data.

Article 16 of the Information Disclosure Act requires that fees be "within the scope of actual costs" and that consideration be given to making them "as affordable as possible."

The actual cost of copying electronic data onto a CD-ROM is negligible. It is clearly unreasonable and violates Article 16 of the Information Disclosure Act that receiving electronic data incurs a fee more than 20 times the cost of providing a printed copy, which is approximately 150,000 yen.

The digitization of administrative documents should, in principle, reduce not only the workload for the government but also the costs and burdens on those receiving the information. However, a system where fees are significantly higher simply because the information is in electronic format contradicts the principles of the Information Disclosure Act, which require fees to be "within the actual cost" and "as affordable as possible."

◼︎ This goes against the purpose of the system reform.

The provisions regarding fees for electronic data in the Enforcement Order of the Information Disclosure Act were amended in 2006 in response to the problem that the fees would become excessively high if calculated based on the amount of data.

Previously, the fee was set at "220 yen for every 0.5 MB," but it was criticized for being too expensive, leading to the current regulations. Since a single CD-ROM has a capacity of 700 MB, even with a full load of information, the fee under the old regulations would have been 388,000 yen.

Nevertheless, if the revised regulations result in fees exceeding 3 million yen for data that fits on a single CD-ROM, it contradicts the purpose of the system reform, which was to reduce the burden of exorbitant fees. The revised fees being nearly ten times higher than those under the old regulations is simply outrageous.

social significance

The information disclosure system is a system that allows citizens to verify what decisions the government makes, how they are made, and how tax money is being used.

Even if a disclosure order is issued, if researchers, journalists, civil society groups, and ordinary citizens have to pay millions of yen to receive the information, it will be difficult for them to verify the information. While the right to information disclosure exists in form, the system could become practically unusable.

In 2019, the government decided on a policy to manage administrative documents electronically from creation to storage, disposal, and transfer. This decision was made in response to a series of scandals involving improper management, and it was also expected to reduce the financial burden on those requesting disclosure of electronic data.

However, this fee decision means that those requesting disclosure will not receive the benefits of digitizing administrative documents.

Even if you have the right to request disclosure of information, and even if a disclosure decision is made, if the implementation fee is several million yen for a single CD-ROM, it's practically impossible to actually obtain the information.

This lawsuit aims to open the door to legally contesting fee amounts and clarify how "affordable fees" should be calculated within the scope of actual costs. The outcome of this case could not only affect the resolution of this particular case but also impact the national information disclosure system and the operation of similar systems in local governments. Can public documents be made into "intellectual resources shared by the public" that everyone can actually use? The very foundation of information disclosure systems in the digital age is being questioned.

Use of Donations

Whether the appropriateness of the fee can be contested in court, and how a fair fee is determined in light of the spirit of the Information Disclosure Act, are both issues for which there is no established theory, and there are very few relevant court precedents or academic theories. Therefore, in court, I would like to request researchers to prepare opinion letters and submit them as documentary evidence, and I would like to use the funds to cover the costs of the court proceedings, including the fees for requesting these opinion letters.

Your donations will be used to cover the following expenses.

• Cost of preparing expert opinions from researchers in administrative law and information disclosure systems.
• Transportation expenses necessary for investigations, document collection, court appearances, etc.
• Costs associated with reporting sessions and information dissemination.
  

After covering the above expenses, any remaining funds will be used for the legal team's retainer fees, remuneration, etc.

Plaintiff's thoughts

Plaintiff: Professor Jun Nakabayashi

The Information Disclosure Act has included electronic records (data) as items subject to disclosure since its enactment in 1999. I believe it was prescient that the system was created with the utilization of the vast amount of data held by the government in mind, long before national and local governments were advancing DX and digitalization as they are today. However, what has become clear from this disclosure request to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism is that in actual operation, high fees are imposed, undermining the meaning of making electronic records subject to disclosure. Moreover, if there is no opportunity to contest the information disclosure fees in administrative litigation due to the issue of administrative disposition, then the government will have considerable discretion in disclosing electronic records. I was deeply surprised and alarmed by this point, and decided to file this lawsuit.

Accessing administrative information through the information disclosure system and scrutinizing policies and institutions plays a crucial role in supporting the foundations of democracy. However, relying solely on paper-based systems for information disclosure is outdated and presents a significant hurdle for researchers like myself. I hope that this case will serve as a catalyst for expanding the public's right to know and for broadening the ways in which administrative information can be used for research and policy evaluation.

 

Message from the assigned lawyer

Freeman's spirit is furious.

It was very hot in New York 31 years ago (1995). To properly create an "Information Disclosure Act," which didn't yet exist in our country, I embarked on a research trip to America, the land of information freedom laws, through the bar association. In New York, we heard from Mr. Freeman, the executive director of the state's Committee on Open Government. At the time, there were concerns that the costs of the Information Disclosure Act would be high, based on a beneficiary pays principle, so we asked about that as well. Mr. Freeman's answer was clear: "For example, information disclosure requests regarding river pollution levels can lead to environmental improvements in the state. Therefore, the costs related to information disclosure should be borne by everyone."

This time, Mr. Nakabayashi is saying that he won't hand over the information unless they buy a single CD for 3.24 million yen. Upon hearing this, Mr. Freeman's spirit, which was instilled in him 31 years ago, became furious. That is why I agreed to take on the role of head of the legal team.

Chief of the defense team: Attorney Kenji Hatada

Introduction of the legal team

Kenji Hatada (Chief Attorney) Osaka Bar Association Minerva Law Office Dan Sakamoto Osaka Bar Association Okawa, Muramatsu & Sakamoto Law Office Yasuo Toyonaga Osaka Bar Association Okamoto & Toyonaga Law Office Takuro Maekawa Osaka Bar Association Asahi Partners Law Office Takahiro Hattori Osaka Bar Association Takahiro Hattori Law Office Takashi Okawa Kanagawa Bar Association Takashi Okawa Law Office Hiroko Ozawa Kanagawa Bar Association Ozawa Law Office

The group is primarily composed of members of "citizen ombudsmen" who have worked on issues such as requests for information disclosure from the government and resident lawsuits to recover damages incurred by local governments due to collusion.

▲Osaka legal team (Front row: Kenji Hatada, Attorney at Law; Back row from left: Yasuo Toyonaga, Attorney at Law; Dan Sakamoto, Attorney at Law; Takahiro Hattori, Attorney at Law)

In conclusion

I believe this is an important lawsuit for research aimed at eliminating collusion and for effectively guaranteeing the right to request disclosure of information.

Raising awareness of this issue among many people would be a great help. We would greatly appreciate your donations to the lawsuit, sharing of information, and your attention to the upcoming trial.