At 11:30 a.m. on October 18, 2022, the 12th Oral Argument was held at Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court.

Along with the written exchanges up to the deadline, I would like to report as follows.

1 Written exchange

Prior to this date, the plaintiff submitted the plaintiff's 11th brief, a "statement of evidence" and a "statement of clarification."

The plaintiff's 11th brief is a document that provides a detailed counterargument to the defendant's brief (6).

A "statement of evidence" is a document that requests the examination of a witness, etc. In the written application, the plaintiff stated: (1) In addition to the plaintiff (Mr. Yasuda); I am requesting the interrogation of a person who can state what was not considered, and (3) the first secretary of the Embassy of Japan in Turkey, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The written request for clarification was submitted by Judge Shigeru Haruna, who was in charge of this case as the presiding judge, in response to his appointment as director of the Litigation Bureau of the Ministry of Justice on September 1 of this year. The plaintiff argues that personnel changes by the Supreme Court, such as the presiding judge of the district court's specialized administrative division being immediately appointed as director of the Litigation Bureau of the defendant, who is one of the parties to the case, while the case is pending, appear to be "circumstances that should hinder the fairness of the trial." (Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

The defendant submits the brief (7) and the "written opinion on the outline of the plan to prove the plaintiff" (hereinafter referred to as the "written opinion")

submitted. Defendant's Brief (7) is a rebuttal to Plaintiff's 9th and 10th Briefs.

is the content.

The written opinion is to argue against the necessity of the examination of witnesses requested by the plaintiff.

Each of the above documents is attached to the lawsuit materials column, so please take a look.

2 Exchanges on the date

At the beginning of the session, an update was made on the argument following the change of the presiding judge.

Prior to renewing the argument, the plaintiff's attorney stated his awareness of the problems described in the written explanation regarding the situation in which former Chief Judge Shigeru Haruna assumed the post of director of the Litigation Bureau of the Ministry of Justice on September 1 this year. I have verbally expressed my opinion that the defendant should respond to the clarification request.

After requesting the defendant to consider the answer to the clarification request, the plaintiff side stated that it had an opinion on the change of the presiding judge before renewing the argument regarding the opinion of the plaintiff litigation counsel. I stated that I would record the purport of submitting a document to the effect in the oral argument record.

After the above exchanges, each document submitted before the deadline was formally submitted, and the plaintiff decided to submit the plaintiff's written statement by the next deadline.

Regarding the acceptance or rejection of personal evidence, the plaintiff should be questioned by the witnesses described in the written evidence. He stated that it is necessary to clarify what circumstances were taken into consideration when making such a decision.

After the above exchanges, the next date was designated as 10:30 am on December 20, 2022 (Tokyo District Court No. 703).

On August 4, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., the 11th Oral Argument Date was held at Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court.

Along with the written exchanges up to the deadline, I would like to report as follows.

1 Written exchange

Prior to this date, in addition to the 9th and 10th briefs, the plaintiff submitted a document titled "Outline of the Proof Plan."

The Ninth Brief states that when the plaintiff is disqualified from issuing a passport, the reason why the country uniformly and fully restricts the plaintiff's freedom to travel abroad to countries other than the country that the country claims to be prohibited from entering is In addition to failing to show the documents, there is procedural illegality in the fact that there were no screening criteria for the issuance of passports in the first place.

The 10th Preliminary Document is based on the fact that the plaintiff was engaged in reporting on conflict areas as a freelance journalist, and that his entry into Syria was based on the sincere purpose of reporting. It argues that there is a deviation and abuse of discretionary power in the disposition of passport non-issuance that was forced without considering the background and the social significance of the news gathering activity.

The "Outline of the Proof Plan" clarifies the schedule for requesting the examination of witnesses, etc.

The defendant submitted a brief (6). The document contains counterarguments to the plaintiff's 5th to 8th briefs.

The above brief will be attached to the litigation materials section of this site, so please take a look.

2 Exchanges on the date

At the beginning of the hearing, the presiding judge announced that there would be a temporary change in the composition of the judges, and procedures for renewing oral arguments were carried out in the same way as on the previous oral argument date.

After that, the plaintiff's 9th brief, 10th brief, and "the outline of the plan of proof" and the defendant's brief (6) were formally submitted.

After making a clerical confirmation of the contents of the plaintiff's tenth brief, the court asked the defendant whether he planned to refute the plaintiff's allegations. Defendant replied that he planned to appeal.

The plaintiff asked the defendant a question regarding the statements in the defendant's brief (6). Plaintiff has so far

(1) Before the 1989 revision of the Passport Law, there was a type of passport called a single round-trip passport.

Therefore, even a person who could not enter country A due to the laws and regulations of a certain country (country A) was able to travel to another country (country B) with a single round-trip passport.

Assuming that

(2) According to the defendant's position that under the current Passport Law, those who cannot enter country A are not guaranteed the right to enter country B, the abolishment of one-way passports following the revision in 1989 will result in have been deprived of the right to travel to the country, but there is no basis to justify such deprivation

(See page 9 of Plaintiff's 7th brief).

On the other hand, the defendant previously argued that there was no problem because if there was a problem at the time of the 1989 revision, it would have been discussed in the Diet, but it was not discussed. In the brief (6) that I submitted this time, I argued that when the revision was made in 1989, deliberations in the Diet were carried out in anticipation of the disadvantages associated with the abolishment of single-trip passports. Whether or not the plaintiff claims to the defendant that deliberations have been specifically held in the Diet regarding the disadvantages associated with the abolishment of the single-round-trip passport, and if so, materials to prove this. was asked to submit The court instructed the defendant to consider whether or not to answer.

The plaintiff has decided to submit a counterargument to the defendant's brief (6) by the next date.

In addition, the court instructed the plaintiff to prepare the plaintiff's written statement based on the "skeleton of the plan of proof" submitted by the plaintiff, and asked the defendant whether he had a plan to prove himself. and to submit opinions on the plaintiff's plan of proof (such as opinions on the necessity of examination of witnesses). During this process, the plaintiff requested the defendant to clarify the name of the person who could accurately answer the background and content of the decision to approve or deny the issuance of the passport in this case.

After the above exchanges, the next date was specified as 11:30 am on October 18, 2022 (Tokyo District Court No. 703).

The 10th oral argument date was held at Tokyo District Court No. 703 on May 17, 2022 at 15:00. Below, we will report along with the exchange of briefs up to the same date.

Exchange before 1 deadline

Prior to this date, the plaintiff submitted the 7th and 8th briefs (please refer to the "Proceedings" section). Each brief is a counter-argument to the defendant's brief (5), following the plaintiff's 5th and 6th briefs submitted on the previous date.

In the brief (5), the defendant clarified the background of the revision of the Passport Act in 1970, the purpose of the revision, and the Diet discussion at the time of the revision, and then when the Passport Act was revised in 1989, the so-called limited passport (travel destination) Or, it is a passport that limits the validity period.) The fact that the system was established is as stated in the report on the 9th oral argument date.

In the plaintiff's 7th brief, after considering the purpose of the amendment of the 1970 Amendment Act and the 1989 Amendment Act,

(1) With the conversion of general passports to multiple round-trip passports in the 1989 revision, the freedom of overseas travel with one-trip passports to individual destinations, which had been permitted until then, was deprived, and the Passport Act, Article 13, Paragraph 1, 1 According to the Passport Act, Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act, it is said that the immigration ban by a specific country has made it possible to make overseas travel to countries other than that country in advance and completely impossible. In the text, it became unconstitutional because it imposes excessively wide-ranging regulations (the same paragraph does not issue general passports to "persons who are not permitted to enter the country by the laws and regulations enforced at the destination". It is stipulated that it can be done.)

As well as insisting on the main

(2) Even if the point (1) above is taken into consideration, if the Passport Act is interpreted in a constitutional manner, if the traveler falls under only Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act, the country that prohibits the traveler from entering the country. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is obliged to issue general passports to destinations other than the above, and even if such issuance is not obligatory, at least a limited passport must be issued.

I am making a preliminary claim.

The plaintiff's 8th brief is discretionary in disposing of the plaintiff's non-issuance, even if the Minister of Foreign Affairs has certain discretionary power over whether or not to issue a general passport to a person who falls under Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act. It claims that there is a deviation or abuse of the right (Article 30 of the Administrative Litigation Act) and that it is unconstitutional.

2nd deadline exchange

The plaintiffs formally submitted the 7th and 8th briefs after the renewal of the argument was carried out at the beginning of this date following the partial change of judges.

The court instructed the defendant to prepare a counterargument to the above brief.

In addition, the court asked the plaintiff about the outlook for the future proof plan (whether or not to request a witness cross-examination or a party cross-examination, what kind of person is expected to request a witness cross-examination, etc.). The plaintiff replied that he was considering cross-examination of the plaintiff himself and the civil servants involved in the disposition of non-issuance of the passport.

From the above exchanges, it can be seen that the court recognizes that the disputes have been resolved through the exchange of briefs.

3 Next due date

The next date was designated as 11:00 on August 4, 2022 (Tokyo District Court No. 703).

The 9th oral argument date was held at Tokyo District Court No. 703 on March 8, 2022 at 11:30 am.

Document exchange before 1 deadline

The defendant submitted a brief (5) (February 28, 2022), clarified the background of the revision of the Passport Act in 1970, the purpose of the revision, and the Diet discussion at the time of the revision, and then the passport of 1989. At the time of the revision of the law, we supplemented the claim that the so-called limited passport (passport that limits the destination or validity period) was established. The supplement to this allegation had already been instructed by the court on the date of oral argument two years ago (2021 ● Month ● Sun).

Regarding the purpose of the limited passport system, the defendant should not issue a multiple round-trip passport that comprehensively describes the travel destination for those who have a reason for refusal to issue a general passport as stipulated in Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act. , While pointing out that it has become possible to issue limited passports because it may be necessary to individually specify the destination for humanitarian reasons and issue passports, there are reasons for refusal to issue general passports. At one point, he insisted that the issuance of a limited passport was not obligatory. In addition, as a premise, he also insisted that the revised Act of 1970 had already planned the operation of not issuing multiple round-trip passports to those who fall under Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act.

The plaintiff submitted a brief (5) in addition to the 5th and 6th briefs.

Each brief relies on the opinions of two researchers who specialize in international human rights law and administrative law, and refutes the defendant's allegations. Furthermore, in the statement of clarification (5), when the defendant alleges that Mr. Yasuda received an immigration ban from the Turkish government, he replied again about how the Japanese government obtained information on the immigration ban. I want it.

Exchange on the second date

On the oral argument date, the briefs of both parties were formally submitted.

After exchanging the proceedings regarding the arrangement of the proceedings in this case, the plaintiff decided to make a full counterargument regarding the background and purpose of the revision of the Passport Act described in the brief (5).

3 Next due date

The next date was designated at 15:00 on May 17 (Tokyo District Court No. 703).

The 8th oral argument date was held at the Tokyo District Court No. 703 on December 9, 2021.

I did.

Document exchange before 1 deadline

Based on the court's instructions on the previous date, the defendant was invoked by the Turkish government against Mr. Yasuda.

Legal grounds for immigration bans and restrictions when the issuance of general passports is refused

I submitted the Defendant's Brief (4), which describes the operation related to the issuance of passports.

In addition, the defendant submitted a "note verbale" prepared by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to support the immigration ban.

Did. Here, regarding the plaintiff, "October 24, 2018, leaving the country from Istanbul Airport"

Japan, Article 6458 Foreigner / International Protection Law Article 9 (3) prohibits entry into Turkey for 5 years. "

And so on.

The plaintiff responded to the defendant's brief (4) by the Government of Japan and Turkey before the date and time when the "note verbale" was prepared.

Following the fact that there were many exchanges between the governments and multiple note verbales were created.

Before, (1) Disclosure of other note verbales prepared by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (2) Immigration bans against Mr. Yasuda

When was the Japanese government first informed by the Turkish government about its existence, before ③②?

In that respect, there is a fact that the Japanese government inquired the Turkish government about the existence of immigration bans, etc.

I submitted the plaintiff's statement of explanation (4) requesting that the point be clarified.

Exchange on the second date

On the 8th oral argument date, the defendant's briefs (4) and the plaintiff's briefs (4) will be officially announced.

It was submitted.

The plaintiff prepares the court with a brief to refute the defendant's brief (4), and further

I have informed that I will also submit a part of the expert opinion.

In addition, the court told the defendant

The Passport Act was amended in 1970 and 1989, and the travel destination can be comprehensively described on the general passport.

It was at the time of the amendment in 1970, and it was at the time of the amendment in 1989 that the comprehensive description of the travel destination became the principle.

In this regard, regardless of whether or not Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act is mentioned, the amendment of the bill at the time of each amendment

I would like you to consider submitting materials and minutes that can be understood.

It was decided that the defendant would consider it.

In addition, the court will ask the defendant about the policy for responding to the plaintiff's statement of clarification (4), and the defendant will consider it.

became.

In addition, the plaintiff talked to the defendant about the plaintiff's statement of explanation (4), and Turkey to the plaintiff.

The existence of the government's immigration ban was first revealed by the Japanese government's question to the Turkish government.

Asked if there was a dispute in the fact itself, and in response to this, the plaintiff submitted a written statement of clarification at a later date.

It was supposed to be done.

Based on the above, the next date (9th oral argument date) will be 11:30 am on March 8, 2022.

It was designated as (Tokyo District Court No. 703).

The 7th oral argument date was held at 15:00 on August 31, 2021 at the Tokyo District Court No. 703. This date is the place where the plaintiff's 4th brief, etc., which contains the objection to the defendant's brief (3), is officially submitted to the court.

1 About the 4th brief

The plaintiff's 4th preparatory document states that (1) there is no immigration ban by the Turkish government against Mr. Yasuda, which is considered to be the reason for refusal to issue general passports, and (2) the judgment of refusal to issue general passports is based on the Constitution and the Passport Act. Based on the regulations, it is a prerequisite to issue a passport in principle, and the defendant (country) interprets the situation where the issuance of a passport should be permitted unreasonably narrowly. Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act, which stipulates one of the reasons for refusal of issuance, is not intended to "maintain the international legal order" claimed by the defendant. Is incorrect from the viewpoint of international human rights law, ⑤ It is illegal to refuse the issuance of general passports to Mr. Yasuda even if the Turkish government presupposes the denial of entry, ⑥ In the case of refusal to issue general passports. , It claims that the fact that the necessary examination standards have not been set based on the Administrative Procedure Act is itself illegal in terms of procedure. (For details of the plaintiff's 4th brief, please see the "Proceedings" page.)

2 Exchanges on the 7th oral argument date

On the due date, the plaintiff's 4th brief was stated after the renewal procedure of the argument was carried out in response to the change of the presiding judge due to the transfer (the new presiding judge is Judge Haruna Shigeru). Evidence No. 38 has been submitted.

After that, the presiding judge urged the defendant (country) to supplement the allegations, etc., based on the consensus of the court body.

① About immigration prohibition measures

In this case, it is an important fact whether the plaintiff (Mr. Yasuda) was banned from entry by the Turkish government. The defendant has submitted a report allegedly prepared by a foreign ministry official based on hearings from the Turkish government and a document allegedly prepared by a local Turkish agency as evidence, but the grounds for immigration denial measures The plaintiffs have argued against (Turkish domestic law). Therefore, if you have a concrete assertion about the existence and grounds of the immigration ban, please submit it.

② About refusal to issue general passports

The defendant (country) alleges that the plaintiff's imposition of immigration denial is a reason for refusal to issue a general passport (Passport Act, Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1). However, the plaintiffs also argue that the country did not even issue limited passports (passports with limited destinations). In the process of amending the Passport Act, the Defendant deliberates in the Diet whether or not to issue a limited passport if it falls under the reason of Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 (cannot enter the country due to the regulations of the destination). Although it states that it has never been done, please submit any explanatory materials such as the deliberation process in the Diet and the purpose of the revised law.

Also, please insist on what kind of case the limited passport is issued.

In response to the court's indication, the defendant (country) replied that he would consider the above point (1), including the submission of new evidence, and stated that it would take about three months to submit the counterargument. rice field.

In response to the above point (1) from the court, the defendant (country) agent stated that the report submitted by the defendant as evidence of immigration bans was prepared based on the document prepared by Turkey. I made it clear. Defendant was found to have only submitted reports prepared by Defendant, despite the availability of such primary sources.

In response to the above, the next date was designated as 11:30 on December 9, 2021 (Tokyo District Court No. 703).

On June 22, 2021, the sixth oral argument date was held at the Tokyo District Court No. 703.

On this date, the brief (3) submitted by the defendant was stated. The brief (3) is on the previous date

Submitted in response to the court's request to answer the defendant's question (explanation) that the plaintiff asked the defendant.

is.

The court instructed the plaintiff to refute the brief (3). However, the brief (3) is the plaintiff.

It was not a complete answer to the clarification. In particular, under the Passport Act before the revision in 1989, from a specific country

Even if you are prohibited from entering the country, you cannot always refuse to issue a passport to a destination other than that country.

Defendant did not explicitly comment on the existence of the fact that it was.

The plaintiff's agent asked if he had any plans to argue as a defendant on the above points, but including this part, the next time

We will prepare a counterargument on the due date.

The next date will be held at Tokyo District Court No. 703 from 15:00 on August 31, 2021.

The 5th oral argument date was held at 10:30 on April 13, 2021 at the Tokyo District Court No. 703.

(1) Exchange before the deadline

Prior to this date, the defendant submitted the defendant's brief (2) on March 31st. In addition, the evidence submitted by the defendant (Exhibit Otsu No. 13-3, Exhibit Otsu No. 18-21) was investigated accordingly.

The content is a counterargument to the previous plaintiff's briefs (a total of three from the first brief to the third brief).

(1) As the basis of the Turkish law for immigration bans that Turkey is said to have imposed on Mr. Yasuda, the points that cannot be grounded are listed.

(2) Regarding the contradiction between the time of the deportation notice to Mr. Yasuda and the accompaniment of Mr. Yasuda on the day, he did not approve or argue, and did not show any grounds, and stated the contents of the Turkish report "There is no reason to question. "There is no particular doubt about reliability."

③ Ignoring the difference between Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act and the reasons for each of the other items (especially Item 7), and the difference between the passport system at the time of enactment of the Passport Act and the current passport system, the legislative purpose of No. 1 is "international interest". In the case of No. 1, the purpose is to maintain the international legal order, prevent crimes in the international community, maintain the relationship of trust in the international community, and maintain Japan's national interests. Adopting a framework that it is not illegal to refuse the issuance of a passport unless there are "special circumstances"

④ The claim on the content of the discretion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs that can refuse the issuance of passports ( the harmful effects of allowing the issuance of passports) is abstract, and it is judged that there are specific harmful effects and the issuance of passports to Mr. Yasuda. It is unclear how they specifically evaluated the freedom of overseas travel and the freedom of coverage that would be lost by not allowing the issuance of passports.

It was extremely problematic.

Therefore, the plaintiff submitted a written statement (3) on April 12, the day before this date.

The content, including the above points, asks you to answer the part where the defendant's allegation is not clear.

(2) Exchange on the due date

Defendant's briefs (2) and clarifications (3) were stated.

From the plaintiff's side, it is the defendant's country that knows best about the process leading up to Mr. Yasuda's return to Japan, and the facts should be clarified. It is a serious restriction, it is done without pre-established standards, and if the specific content of the judgment is not clarified even after the fact, it is decided by the national government to go abroad. He insisted that he would be able to restrict his travel.

With instructions from the presiding judge, the defendant will consider the answer to the statement of clarification (3), especially the process leading up to Mr. Yasuda's return to Japan by the next time.

The defendant stated that it may take some time to respond to the exchange in Turkey, and requested a preparation period of one and a half months (end of May), so the next date is 16:30 on June 22, 2021. From the minute, it will be held at the Tokyo District Court No. 703 court.

The argument has been updated following the change of judge.

On this date, the proceedings were conducted on the premise that the defendant's briefs (2) were inadequate, and the defendant decided to consider the answer to the plaintiff's clarification again.

It will be interesting to see how far the defendant will reveal the facts on the next date.

The 4th oral argument date was held at 13:30 on December 8th at the Tokyo District Court No. 703.

On this date, we submitted a brief to clarify the plaintiff's allegations (a total of three briefs from the first to the third briefs) and each evidence supporting the allegations.

The first brief mainly refers to the legislation of each G7 country, and is based on the fact that in each G7 country, travelers are prohibited from entering the country from a specific country as in Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act. It clarifies that there is no provision to allow the refusal of passport issuance, and highlights the irrationality of the reason for refusal to issue passports in Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act.

The second brief states that the Passport Act, Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 and the disposition for refusing to issue passports based on it are unconstitutional and invalid, contrary to Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Civil Liberties Covenant). It claims to be. Furthermore, in the brief, the government alleged the case of the European Court of Human Rights (“Stamose v. Bulgaria case”) in which the refusal to issue a passport was judged to be a violation of the International Covenant on Civil Rights, and the change in legislation in Bulgaria. It claims that there is no basis for the legislative purpose of the passport law called "international faith".

The third brief contains a counter-argument to the first brief submitted by the government. There is no concrete basis for the "international faith" that the government claims as the legislative purpose of Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act, and based on this basis, freedom of overseas travel is indispensable for the development of a person's free personality. It insists that it is not permissible to restrict the situation, and that Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act itself is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, regarding the passport issuance refusal disposition made to Mr. Yasuda, there is no fact that Mr. Yasuda was banned from entering the country in the first place, and Mr. Yasuda said, "Enter the country according to the regulations enforced at the destination. Journalism was unfairly disregarded for not being "a person who cannot be admitted" (Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act) and not issuing a passport to Mr. Yasuda, who has continued his coverage activities in conflict zones. It has been clarified that it is a disposition, and it is claimed that this passport issuance refusal disposition is illegal.

On the due date, the national government requested the submission of a counter-argument on the end of March next year (a little less than four months). In response to this, the next date will be held at the Tokyo District Court No. 703 court from 10:30 on April 13, 2021.

This deadline ended only with the procedure for submitting the briefs, but the conflict between the plaintiff and the state's allegations became clear, and the proceedings will begin in earnest in the future.

Prior to the date of the third oral argument, the defendant shared evidence with the plaintiff, such as the translation of the "Notice of Deportation," which is the basis for the existence of an immigration ban on Mr. Yasuda.

On this date, the plaintiff's litigation agent will request a more detailed translation because the translation submitted by the defendant is incomplete, and the procedure for deportation will be carried out regarding the fact that Mr. Yasuda has been banned from entering the country. In order to confirm that there is no contradiction between the alleged time taken and the time when Mr. Yasuda left Turkey by aircraft, he requested an explanation regarding the information of the aircraft on which Mr. Yasuda boarded. Defendant refused to respond to the clarification.

Under the direction of the court proceedings, the plaintiff will submit a counterargument to the defendant's first brief, and the next date was set at 13:30 (Court No. 703) on December 8, 2020.