I have obtained the appellant's "Answer".

The main points are that " the appellee 's (Japanese government's) arguments will be clarified in preparatory documents at a later date ."

Does it look like the preparatory documents will not be ready in time for the first oral argument on Friday?

Generally speaking, one might think that there is no way to conclude a case until the arguments of the appellant and appellee are presented.

The appeal is in its early stages , but what will happen?

First, let's start with the report on the district court ruling on September 20th.

 3 judges

The oral argument will be held on May 21st (scheduled to open at 1400), and you will be able to observe it.

 We would like to ask for your cooperation so that as many people as possible can participate in the lottery.

An article about the oral argument was published in the Tokyo Shimbun.

 https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/285723

 10 consecutive proceedings have been held since February 22, 2022, and the preliminary documents, evidence, and evidence explanations submitted during that period will be uploaded one by one, so please wait for a while.

 Under the direction of the judge, we submitted documents on each topic, and the culmination of our efforts was oral argument on October 24th.

It took about 50 minutes, but it was also the longest time ever .

The next meeting will be a progress discussion on December 5th.

It seems likely that this will be the final proceeding discussion regarding the plaintiff eligibility and disposition issues.

I am keeping an eye on how the judge will lead the case, whether they will proceed to a "final judgment" at the door, an "interim judgment", or a discussion of illegality and legality.

According to an announcement by the Tokyo District Court.

https://www.courts.go.jp/app/botyokoufu_jp/detail?id=11654&list_id=15,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25

The lottery will be held at 13:40, so please line up in the lottery line 5 minutes early.

I would appreciate it if you could listen to it in any way possible.

Thank you.

The debriefing session after the trial is scheduled to begin at 3:30 pm at the House of Representatives Building 2.

The 14th date (progress discussion) on Sept. 5 is over.

It has been one year and three months since the case was switched to the progress conference in June last year.

There is a possibility that the judge will make an interim consideration soon.

This is not a notice of the conclusion of the trial,

the main issue (whether the government's administrative action is illegal or legal) is likely to be discussed,

I think everyone has his or her own way of taking it.

I guess everyone has his or her own way of taking it.

It is not yet clear in what form the plaintiffs will hear the interim consideration.

Nevertheless, in a court case seeking relief for noise damage (nuisance) and falling object/crash plane hazards,

At least for the number of plaintiffs who can be found to have disposability and plaintiffs' standing,

I guess we will hear officially in the not-too-distant future whether or not the decision is judgment-like or tentative.

In the midst of all this, the oral arguments on October 24th have been building up to this point in the proceeding discussions from last June to this Sept.

We will be presenting oral arguments regarding the dispositional nature of the case and the standing of the plaintiffs, especially with regard to noise.

Since we have limited time, we will not argue endlessly.

We hope that you will be able to participate in the lottery on Oct.24th, unless you are Corona positive.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Under the direction of the trial panel, the 'progress negotiations' are still ongoing.

 Even during ongoing negotiations, based on the request of the judge,

 the plaintiff/legal team has newly submitted both briefs and documentary evidence.

 We plan to publish it at once when the procedure returns to oral argument. Please wait.

Next time, September 5th, the 15th date will also be "progress discussion".

On the next 16 dates, the judge indicated that he intended to return to oral argument ,

Currently scheduled for 10/24 . (Situation where the date and time of the Grand Tribunal was “temporarily reserved”)

As a summary of the plaintiff's allegations that "there is plaintiff eligibility and disposal!"

Regardless of how much time is allotted, we plan to have the defense team and the plaintiff present their opinions.

In Tokyo, where the 9th wave of the corona virus is reigniting , and during the 8th wave of the corona virus, there was a rescheduling of progress discussions. Although it is difficult to say that it is a fixed schedule, we would appreciate it if you could schedule it in advance so that you can cooperate with the attendance lottery.

During the proceedings, the plaintiff/defense team mainly made the following written allegations.

 (1) Based on the Supreme Court decision in the Atsugi base lawsuit, the ``definition of the flight route by the AIP chart'' and the ``notice of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism dated December 16, 2019 lifting the ban on flying over Kawasaki (East Air Protection No. 16)'' Disposable

 (2) Residents within a range of at least 5,500m left and right from the center of the flight path as eligible plaintiffs for litigation to relieve fear of serious damage to life and health caused by falling objects such as ice blocks and parts from aircraft, and crashed aircraft. 

 ③ Considering the possibility of secondary damage such as a fire occurring at the Kawasaki oil complex, residents living in a certain specific area are eligible to be plaintiffs regarding the cancellation of the notification of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism based on the disaster prevention plan.

(4) Concerning the actual state of noise damage, submit an estimate of how much the actual maximum noise value measured by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism's 24-hour monitoring station will be at the location of the plaintiff's residence. In estimating the maximum noise value, the work of estimating the three-dimensional distance (not just horizontal or vertical distance) between the measurement station and the noise source, and the three-dimensional distance between the plaintiff's residence and the noise source, with reasonable accuracy. is included. In addition, it shows whether the estimated individual maximum value of all 29 plaintiffs is within the range of the protection standards based on the Tokyo Metropolitan Environmental Preservation Ordinance, for example, and what evaluation it corresponds to based on the noise guidelines of the Architectural Institute of Japan. Of course, the basic data for judging the level of background noise when the new Haneda route is not operated is the MLIT measurement data at 00:00 every hour for the three days from August 9th to 11th last year. , a total of 71 sheets have been submitted.

3 years from filing. Since the 6th meeting in June of last year, we have had nine consecutive discussions at relatively short intervals. I would appreciate it if you would continue to pay attention to the outcome of this trial and ask for your possible cooperation.