*Translated by Google Translate.

We have temporarily suspended fundraising for this case because the case organizer's obligations as stipulated in the Terms of Use, such as registering litigation progress and posting litigation documents, have not been carried out.

There are two types of administrative procedures: notification systems and permit systems. These two are very different. Businesses that use the notification system are basically allowed to operate as long as the notification is submitted, and the government cannot refuse them. However, even businesses that are subject to the notification system can be treated as if they were under a permit system if the government does not want to approve them, and as a result, they are not allowed to operate. This case is a lawsuit questioning the problematic nature of such an unfair response to the notification of a private lodging business in Chuo Ward.

■ Notification system and licensing system

The types of notifications include marriage notifications and change of address notifications.
The types of licenses and permits include restaurant business licenses.

Both are procedures defined by the Administrative Procedure Act, but there are very big differences between the notification system and the licensing system.
A notification is a factual act of notifying an administrative agency of certain matters, and in principle, once the notification is submitted, the process is complete.
The government office cannot refuse to accept it.

When submitting a marriage notification or a change of address notification, which are required by notification, it is not permitted to refuse the request by saying, for example, "You must get permission from your parents" or "We do not allow people with criminal records to move." This is because these are required by notification and are not subject to government approval or authorization.

On the other hand, when applying for a license or permit, the administrative agency is obligated to respond to the applicant with a response of acceptance. The applicant can only obtain his or her rights after receiving that response.

You may have heard the expression "accepting a notification," but there is no concept of "acceptance" in the original notification. In principle, administrative agencies use the word "acceptance" for the convenience of notifying something that should have an effect only by being notified.
For this reason, some people may mistakenly believe that the administrative agency will receive the notification.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to change the understanding of these notifications and correct administrative misconduct.

■ Notification of residential lodging business

My case arose regarding this residential accommodation business notification.
Do you remember that the Residential Accommodation Business Act, the so-called new private lodging law, came into effect on June 15, 2018, about three years ago?
Following the enforcement of this new private lodging law, many private lodging owners across the country have filed notifications for private lodging businesses.

However, some local governments that were reluctant to implement private lodgings treated the notification system as if it were a permit system, as if they were hindering the implementation of the business. For example, they would ask for documents that were not required to be submitted when submitting notifications, or they would ignore the notifications and not accept them. Among the local governments where I submitted notifications, Tokyo's Chuo Ward was particularly notable for this attitude. As a result, local governments other than Chuo Ward began to treat notifications as notifications.

However, Chuo Ward was the only one that consistently refused to comply with the notifications. In order to expose the injustice of how the ward has disregarded the notification system and violated the rights of citizens, and to protect this notification system, I filed a lawsuit against Chuo Ward in October 2018 seeking state compensation (administrative litigation).

The purpose is to expose the extent to which Chuo Ward has disregarded the notification system and violated the rights of its citizens, and to protect this notification system.

■ Administrative litigation ongoing for more than two and a half years

(Chuo Ward Office, Tokyo)

At first, I filed a lawsuit myself, submitting documents without the help of a lawyer, but unfortunately the first instance trial dismissed my claim. However, when I asked a lawyer to appeal, the Tokyo High Court did not immediately rule to uphold the first instance trial decision, but instead submitted the following questions to both parties and conducted a careful trial.

■ Why Chuo Ward is excluding private lodgings

In 2018, the Tokyo Olympics were looming in 2020.

The area around Tokyo Station is home to Japan's leading Ginza and Nihonbashi areas, and many luxury hotels and accommodation facilities have been built there, so not only the ward mayor but even the assembly has been opposed to private lodgings.

We believe that private lodgings are not suitable for the Chuo Ward brand.

As proof of this, the number of reports accepted in Chuo Ward is zero, by far the lowest in the country (in terms of population ratio).

■ A brief introduction of the measures taken by Chuo Ward in response to the notification

• Delaying procedures, taking more than a week to respond to one request → A method of stalling for time and leaving the request unattended
  
  
• They refuse to accept the notification because they impose requirements or conditions that are not stipulated in the notification law. → If you are a weak-willed notifier, you will get discouraged and give up at this point.
  
  
• Although it is a notification, they treat it as an application for a license or permit and give incorrect instructions → Although a notification is a de facto act, they make it more difficult
  
  
• False advice is given as if it were for a legitimate reason or action → It is difficult to resist false guidance from officials in administrative procedures
  
  
• Ignoring the report → Leaving the report in a position where the report filer cannot fight back, rendering them powerless

My notification has been kept in Chuo Ward since May 8 , 2018 until today .

However, Chuo Ward still claims that I have not filed the notification. In this lawsuit, I am unable to fulfill my notification obligations and am paying about 1 million yen in rent every month to maintain the property. It has been more than two and a half years since I was last able to operate a private lodging business (minpaku) for even a single day.

During this time, I studied law and thoroughly learned the Private Lodging Business Act.

We have also been lobbying the Japan Tourism Agency and other local governments to implement various improvements so that notifications for private lodging businesses are handled appropriately. Now, many local governments are handling notifications for private lodging businesses appropriately.

■ Lawsuits to secure the right to file

• A notification is a factual act of notifying an administrative agency of certain matters, and in principle, no review or permission is required.
  
  
• The notification is completed once the proper documents are received.
  
  
• If there is an error in the notification, it can be corrected and it is not possible to refuse to accept it.
  
  
• There is no concept of acceptance when filing a notification. I want to confirm that due process has been followed without being misled by the words used for convenience by administrative agencies.
  
  
• The only reason a notification may be refused is if the notification act clearly violates the law. In that case, the notification must be returned along with the reason for refusal.
  
  
• Inform people that leaving the notice unattended after receiving it is an illegal act.
  
  

I sincerely hope that each and every step of the administrative procedures for these notifications will be fact-checked and that the right to make notifications will be protected.

■ Use of funds (donations)

• Litigation costs (attorney's fees, costs for preparing documents necessary for the trial, research costs, etc.): Approximately 1.5 million yen.
  
  
• Fees for written opinions requested from certified administrative scriveners and scholars (constitutional law scholars, administrative law scholars, etc.): Because this is a specialized field, we plan to have a specialist write the opinion.
  
  
• Costs related to information disclosure requests to Chuo Ward: We have made a total of over 1,000 information disclosure requests.
  
  
• If we receive a large amount of donations and have a surplus after covering all expenses, we would like to donate it to the support organizations that have assisted us in this lawsuit.
  
  

■Summary of this administrative litigation <br>Administrative litigation with Chuo Ward, TokyoThere have been three lawsuits with Chuo Ward this time, so I will explain how the lawsuits are progressing.

Case Number District Court (1): Heisei 30 (Wa) No. 33135 (Judgment completed)
High Court: Reiwa 1 (Ne) No. 4562 (current case)
District Court (2): Case No. 20 of 2021 (Gyo-U) (current case)

■ Purpose of the lawsuit
Protecting the notification system, which is a fundamental right of citizens

Fact Finding <br>The notification of a residential lodging business is not a license-approval system, but a notification system. Notification is a factual act and is not accepted by administrative authorities. Transparency of the administrative procedure process for the notification of a residential lodging business.

Proof of exceeding authority <br>Proof of exceeding authority of the Chuo Ward Public Health Center against its vested rights Proof of tortious acts by Chuo Ward Public Health Center staff Proof of violation of the Administrative Procedure Act by Chuo Ward

Proof of the illegality of the arbitrary ordinance of Chuo Ward <br>Securing vested rights over hotels and inns Arbitrary ordinances enacted by the ward mayor and assembly