*Translated by google translate

Introduction

In Japan, it may be common for employees to be ordered to transfer to another location due to their employer's circumstances. However, what if the transfer meant a significant reduction in salary?

In this case, a sitting judge who was ordered to transfer is suing the government as a plaintiff.

Article 80, paragraph 2 of the Constitution stipulates that, in order to guarantee the status of judges, "All judges of lower courts shall receive appropriate remuneration at regular intervals. This remuneration may not be reduced during their term of office." However, the remuneration of the plaintiff, Judge Takeuchi Hiroshi, was reduced by a total of more than 2 million yen over a three-year period following his transfer from the Nagoya High Court to the Tsu District Court.

Isn't it unconstitutional to reduce salary on the grounds of a "regional allowance"?

Overview of the case

Mr. Takeuchi became a lawyer in 1987, and after representing plaintiffs in pollution cases, labor cases, and Citizen Ombudsman cases, he became a judge in 2003.

It is common for judges to be ordered to transfer every two or three years. Takeuchi also worked at several courts every few years. In 2021, he was transferred from the Nagoya High Court in Aichi Prefecture to the Tsu District Court in Mie Prefecture, but due to the transfer, his salary will be reduced by about 2.4 million yen in total for the three years since he started working in Tsu.

The reason for the reduction is the "regional allowance" for civil servants. The amount of remuneration is the base salary multiplied by the regional allowance, but the regional disparity in the amount of the allowance is very large, up to 20%, and the disparity in the allowance can significantly increase or decrease remuneration.

In Takeuchi's case, the regional allowance in Nagoya was 15% of his basic salary, but in Tsu it was 6%, so his transfer meant that he was reduced by 10% of his basic salary.

Article 76, paragraph 3 of the Constitution stipulates that "All judges shall be independent in the exercise of their conscience and shall be bound only by this Constitution and the law." The "independence of judges" referred to here includes judges conducting trials according to their own conscience, without being influenced by other judges or courts.

In order to ensure the independence of judges, their status is guaranteed by the Constitution, and in particular, Article 80, paragraph 2 of the Constitution prohibits any reduction in their remuneration in order to guarantee their status from an economic perspective.

However, if the Supreme Court, which has personnel decisions, were to take advantage of disparities in regional allowances and effectively reduce the salaries of judges it dislikes by transferring them, this provision would be meaningless.

Therefore, in this lawsuit, we argue that local allowances, which allow judges to have their salaries cut, are unconstitutional.

In addition, the regional allowance is determined taking into account the difference in prices in each region, but it is questionable whether the difference in prices is evaluated rationally. For example, even within Saitama Prefecture, the regional allowance in Kawaguchi City and Kawagoe City is 6% of the base salary, while in Wako City it is 16%. It is hard to imagine that there would be a difference in prices in the same prefecture that would require a 10% increase or decrease in salary.

In this lawsuit, it is also argued that such regional disparities in regional allowances are unreasonable.

▲Aichi Prefecture regional allowance grades

The issues in this lawsuit 　

1. The unconstitutionality and illegality of the reduction in salary due to the application of regional allowances to judges

• Since regional allowances are included in a judge's "remuneration," which is prohibited from being reduced by Article 80, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, isn't it unconstitutional to reduce a judge's remuneration due to a transfer?

2. Regional allowances for national government officials are unconstitutional and illegal

• Differences in salary due to regional allowances constitute unreasonable discrimination based on place of work and thus violate the principle of equality under Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
• Aren't the current National Personnel Authority regulations setting the payment locations and payment rates of regional allowances unreasonable and illegal?

Social significance

If the Supreme Court were able to significantly reduce judges' salaries by using transfers, judges might begin to look to the Supreme Court, which has personnel authority, and perform their duties in a way that is in keeping with the nation and the Supreme Court, in order to avoid having their salaries reduced through transfers.

If judges become concerned only with the wishes of the Supreme Court and the country, the conscience of judges and the independence of the judiciary guaranteed by the Constitution will not be upheld, and the people will no longer be able to receive a trial in accordance with their conscience.

Therefore, in this trial, we decided to question the independence of judges and the structure of the judicial system by arguing that regional allowances are irrational and unconstitutional.

Another issue that will be addressed is the regional disparities in regional allowances, which has not been well known until now.

The regional allowance is used in the salaries of not only national civil servants but also local civil servants, and is also used as a reference for the salaries of non-civil servants, so it directly affects the lives of many citizens. In fact, many governors and mayors are calling for improvements in areas with low regional allowances, citing a shortage of childcare workers and nurses.

The regional allowance is reviewed by the National Personnel Authority once every 10 years, with the review coming in the summer of 2024. We hope that this lawsuit will draw attention to the unreasonableness of the regional allowance and lead to fundamental reform.

▲Supreme Court

Use of funds

• Actual costs related to litigation : communication costs, transportation costs, and the largest cost is copying costs

• Information disclosure request fee

• Costs for requesting researchers to write a letter of opinion, etc.

• Banner production, press conference, trial report meeting venue-related expenses, etc.

• Attorney's fees : Fees paid to young lawyers who put in a lot of time and effort. *The plaintiff himself has already paid the usual fees.

Our first goal is to reach 1 million yen. If we receive more than this amount, we would like to use it to cover the actual expenses that are still insufficient at that point, including the daily allowances of our lawyers.

Plaintiff’s thoughts

Plaintiff Hiroshi Takeuchi

About the legal team

Attorney Mikio Mizuno, a leading expert in lawsuits related to death and suicide from overwork, has been appointed as head of the defense team. In addition, attorney Satoshi Shinkai, who fought administrative lawsuits together with us during our time as Nagoya Citizens' Ombudsman, attorney Yuji Nakatani, who is well-known for many constitutional lawsuits, and many other lawyers, from veterans to young people, who wish for the independence of the judiciary, have also been appointed as representatives. In addition, attorney Takato Nakadogawa, a former judge and former member of the "Japan Judges Network," is also a representative. More than 40 lawyers are representing us.

Message from the legal team

At a press conference held on April 16, 2024, Takeuchi stated that the reduction in his salary due to the reduction in his regional allowance violates Article 80, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, and revealed that as an active judge, he would file a lawsuit against the government seeking payment of approximately 2.4 million yen.

When this "notice of lawsuit" was widely reported in the media, voices of support came from not only judges, national university professors, and Self-Defense Force members who, like Takeuchi, are national civil servants and have concerns about the "regional allowance," but also local civil servants who comply with the national "regional allowance."

Many of Takeuchi's former colleagues from his days as a lawyer, who learned of his courageous actions, and those who had seen Takeuchi's trial run in line with the "conscience of judges," came together to support him, and the lawsuit was filed on July 2nd. The lawsuit was named "Eliminating disparities in regional allowances and restoring the conscience of judges," and a team of more than 40 lawyers came together in support of its social significance.

By revealing the disparities in regional allowances, I hope to highlight the reality of discrimination against conscientious judges, raise awareness among the public of the importance of judicial independence, and work toward true judicial independence.

Call for Donation

As one of the few former lawyers who has been appointed to the public service, Takeuchi has worked sincerely and according to his conscience as a judge for over 20 years. However, after receiving a pay cut when he was transferred to a local area, he decided to file a lawsuit not for his own sake but to "eliminate the disparity in regional allowances and restore the conscience of judges."

It is unprecedented for a sitting judge to directly question Article 80, paragraph 2 of the Constitution. I think the case will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Please cooperate with us to support "conscientious judges" and restore "judicial independence."