*Translated by Google Translate

Introduction

 In September 2022, the former mayor of Koganei City enacted an ordinance (school closure ordinance) to close two city-run nursery schools (stopping the enrollment of newborns) by special decision. In February 2024, the Tokyo District Court ruled that the closure ordinance was invalid because it was enacted through illegal procedures, and overturned the city's decision to deny admission to the plaintiff's children. The city accepted the ruling and did not appeal, and the ruling became final.

However, the city argued that the ruling only applied to the plaintiffs, and the ordinance to close the school is valid for all citizens other than the plaintiffs, and did not allow other children to attend the school. As a result, the childcare environment has been significantly damaged, with siblings unable to attend the same school and no children in the same grade.

This lawsuit was filed by 12 people from seven households living in Koganei City (one person from one household is scheduled to be merged on February 20th), who are seeking to correct the infringement of their rights caused by the city's response and to create an environment in which they can raise children with peace of mind.

The Tokyo District Court ruled that the ordinance to close the kindergarten was invalid, and the city accepted the ruling. However, the city has not yet resumed accepting new students, and continues to ignore the rights of parents and children.

 If things continue as they are, not only will the damage to citizens increase, but it will also lead to distrust in the judicial system, with people thinking, "There's no point in winning in court." How long will the city continue to enforce the ordinance that has been declared invalid?

 Summary of the lawsuit

 In this lawsuit, 12 people from seven households living in Koganei City, Tokyo, are seeking compensation of 500,000 yen per person from the city.

 In Koganei City, Tokyo, the city council decided in September 2022 to continue deliberation on a proposed ordinance to gradually close two city-run nursery schools. However, the mayor enacted the ordinance to close the two schools, which was supposed to be continued deliberation, by "exclusive decision." "Exclusive decision" (Article 179, Paragraph 1 of the Local Autonomy Act) is an exceptional measure that gives the mayor the authority to make decisions on matters that fall under the authority of the assembly in order to ensure the executive function of the head of a local government when the assembly is no longer able to perform its original functions. After the mayor makes an exclusive decision, approval by the assembly is required (Article 179, Paragraph 3 of the Local Autonomy Act), but in this case the city council did not approve the mayor's exclusive decision.

 A Koganei citizen whose first child was enrolled in a city-run nursery school that was subject to gradual closure applied to have her second child enrolled in the same nursery school as her first child, but the city refused to allow her second child to attend the same school, citing the closure ordinance. The parent then filed a lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court against the city, seeking the cancellation of the closure ordinance, the cancellation of the denial of admission for the second child, and compensation. In February 2024, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, revoking the denial of admission for the plaintiff's second child and granting the plaintiff's claim for compensation, on the grounds that the mayor's arbitrary decision was illegal and lacked the necessary requirements, and the closure ordinance was invalid. Article 179, paragraph 1 of the Local Autonomy Law stipulates that the mayor may make a discretionary decision when "the assembly fails to resolve a matter that should be resolved," but "when the assembly fails to resolve a matter that should be resolved" does not simply mean that a resolution is not reached, but is limited to extremely exceptional cases, and it was determined that no such exceptional circumstances were found in this case. The city took the ruling seriously and did not appeal, and the ruling became final.

 However, based on the view that the effectiveness of the ordinance has not been denied for citizens other than the plaintiffs, the city has not reopened the two kindergartens to citizens other than the plaintiffs who won the case, even in fiscal year 2024. As a result, 11 people from six Koganei households who wished to enroll their children in the two kindergartens that are subject to the closure ordinance became plaintiffs and filed a lawsuit in the Tachikawa branch of the Tokyo District Court, seeking compensation on the grounds that the failure to reopen the two kindergartens is illegal.

 The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are experiencing significant effects on their lives, including difficulty in returning to work because they cannot enroll their child in the same nursery school as their older child. The plaintiffs' goal in this lawsuit is not to receive payment in itself, but rather to pressure the city to reopen recruitment to all residents by raising their voices against the illegal current situation through the lawsuit from many residents. 

 ▲Koganei City's Kurinomi Nursery School and Sakura Nursery School were subject to the closure ordinance.

 Background

 The background to this lawsuit is as follows: 

 ▲The Tokyo District Court ruling date on February 22, 2024

 Issues at issue

 Is it illegal that the park has not resumed accepting applications from anyone other than the plaintiffs even after the court ruling that the park closure ordinance is illegal and invalid?

 The main issue in this lawsuit is whether it was illegal for the city to not resume recruitment to residents other than the plaintiffs in the lawsuit for nearly a year after the judgment that found the park closure ordinance illegal and invalid was finalized and until the lawsuit was filed.

 Koganei City has stated that the reason it will not reopen the nursery schools to all residents is that the court's denial of the ordinance's validity was limited to the plaintiffs, and that the closure ordinance is still in effect for other residents. In order to reopen the nursery schools to all residents, a new ordinance would be required, and the city will decide on a specific policy based on the report of an advisory committee that is examining the future of Koganei City's nursery schools.

 However, ordinances must be applied equally to all affected residents, and since the court ruling clearly stated that the "ordinance for closing nurseries is illegal and invalid," the ordinance should have lost its effect in relation to all citizens. Prior to filing the lawsuit, the plaintiffs submitted a scholarly opinion (written by a well-known researcher in administrative law and local autonomy law) to the city through the city council, stating that "a new ordinance amendment procedure is not necessary to reopen recruitment to all citizens, and the failure to reopen recruitment is violating the right to equal use of a public facility such as a municipal nursery school," and called for a swift reopening of recruitment, but the city's stubborn response has not changed.

 The plaintiff's child, who enrolled in a municipal nursery school that was scheduled to close after a previous lawsuit was won due to the city not reopening its applications to all residents, is currently alone in the one-year-old class with no other classmates. This type of nursery environment is abnormal and must be corrected immediately from the perspective of children's welfare.

 Recruitment must be resumed immediately for all citizens, both in relation to the plaintiffs in the previous lawsuit and in relation to all citizens. To that end, it is necessary to make it clear in this lawsuit that the city's failure to resume recruitment is illegal.

 ▲Scene from the lawsuit press conference in December 2025

 Social significance

 The purpose of this lawsuit is, first and foremost, to stop the harm suffered by the plaintiffs and their children, but the plaintiffs are not standing up just for themselves.
There are many children and parents who are looking forward to the reopening of the school. In addition, there are many citizens who are opposed to the closure of this historic public nursery school, which has experienced childcare workers and a large playground. It is because of these people's voices that we were able to file this lawsuit as plaintiffs.

Above all, despite the Tokyo District Court ruling that the ordinance on school closures, enacted through the illegal procedure of summary decision, is invalid, if school closures in Koganei City continue as they are, it will set a bad precedent for other municipalities.
For example, it would be permissible to unilaterally and arbitrarily decide to dispose of a public nursery school (or any other public facility), reduce the number of children and staff, exhausting them, and then carry out procedures such as holding a council to review the matter and explaining it to the public, with a predetermined conclusion in mind.
If, despite the fact that a ruling that a local ordinance is illegal and invalid has been made final, the government continues to enforce the invalid ordinance by making up suitable excuses rather than complying with the ruling, and after making it a fait accompli, approves the means to implement policies by amending the ordinance, this would not only go against the intent of the court's ruling, but could also render the judicial system meaningless.

We are conducting this lawsuit in order to prevent this kind of behavior from happening.

 Use of funds

1.  Necessary expenses for conducting a trial (stamps, postage, etc.)
2.  Fee for written opinion
3.  Attorney's fees
4.  Funding for PR activities such as creating and distributing flyers

 During the last trial, we managed to cover the necessary expenses through donations from supporters and at train stations, and by creating and selling clear files, and we were also unable to actually pay the attorney's fees.

 Even if we were to publicize our case to citizens and appeal to public opinion, we are currently lacking funds to distribute flyers and other materials, and are therefore unable to carry out sufficient public relations activities. In order to be able to carry out these activities in the new trial, we need your support through crowdfunding.

 Plaintiff’s thoughts

 As the current nursery school is gradually shrinking, there are families who are forced to transfer because of the uncertainty of the future, the inability to care for children of different ages, and the inability to take the second child to and from the nursery school. I think there will be more families like this in the future. Right now, I have a strong desire for my child to graduate from the same nursery school, but if the same grade level continues to transfer, we may have to consider transferring to another nursery school... This makes both parents very anxious. My son is said by the nursery school teacher to be "a child who is very shy and afraid of new places." He is still young and unstable, so I want to raise him in a calm environment without giving him sudden changes in places and people as much as possible. When I think about the fact that this will not be possible and the impact it will have on my child, I feel more and more anxious every day.

 We are not the only parents with such worries; many parents have been in the same situation or have had to change schools or move out of the city. We would like you to stop the procedures for closing the school and resume accepting applications as soon as possible.

 Message from the Lawyers

 Our legal team also represented the plaintiffs in a previous lawsuit at the Tokyo District Court, where we worked hard to correct the tyrannical decision of the Mayor of Koganei and won a ruling that the park closure ordinance was illegal and invalid. However, we were shocked by the city's response, which was that the park closure ordinance was still valid in relation to parties other than the plaintiffs, and that it would not reopen the park to all residents.

 The current situation in which a municipal nursery school is a public facility that should be available to all citizens equally, with no other children in the one-year-old class and only one child in care, and the painful feelings of the plaintiffs who are unable to enroll their older children in the same nursery school, making it difficult for them to return to work and causing major disruptions to their life plans, must never be overlooked.

 In this lawsuit, we intend to make it clear that the city's response is illegal, and to do our utmost to ensure that recruitment is resumed for all residents as soon as possible.

 Introducing our lawyers

 This lawsuit is being handled by a legal team of four lawyers from the Santama Law Office, located in Tachikawa, Tokyo.

Yukiko Tominaga (Second Tokyo Bar Association)
Norikazu Ueki (Tokyo Bar Association)
Sora Sato (Tokyo Bar Association)
 Maho Kamigaki (Tokyo Bar Association)

 Conclusion

 This lawsuit is a claim for state compensation for the damage suffered by the plaintiffs, but it is not just an issue for the plaintiffs as individuals.

 We want to make it clear that continuing to enforce the ordinance that has been declared illegal and invalid by a court ruling is illegal, and prevent harm to children and parents who use or wish to use public daycare centers as soon as possible.

 If we ignore the city's refusal to treat the park closure ordinance as invalid, it could lead to the judicial system becoming a mere formality, so we ask for your cooperation in preventing this bad precedent from spreading across the country.