On September 1st, the fifth oral argument hearing for the third selective separate surnames lawsuit (Tokyo) was held.

This time too, the hearing was held in the Grand Court, and everyone who attended was able to observe the hearing. Many people also participated in the report session that followed.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and report sessions, and to everyone who watched the live stream.

At the hearing, the plaintiffs presented Preparatory Documents No. 11 to No. 19 regarding their arguments, and submitted Exhibits KoA280 to 364 regarding documentary evidence. In accordance with the principle of oral proceedings, Attorneys Terahara and Shio argued the contents of the preparatory documents. Both attorneys delivered a strong message to the court, stating that the 2015 Grand Bench decision should not be easily followed because gender inequality existed in the 2015 Grand Bench decision itself, that there had been many circumstances in the meantime that required the 2015 Grand Bench decision to be changed, and that forcing married couples to have the same surname was a violation of the Convention.

The next hearing in the Tokyo lawsuit is scheduled for the defendants to make their rebuttal.

Please come and observe the hearings and report sessions. It will be a great encouragement to us.

Date and time: Thursday, December 18, 2025, 11:00 AM

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103 (Grand Court)

On June 11th, the third oral argument hearing was held in the Third Optional Separate Surnames for Married Couples Lawsuit (Sapporo).

The hearing was held in Courtroom 805, and many supporters were in the audience for the hearing and the hearing report meeting.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and reports, and to everyone who watched the live broadcast, for your continued support.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgB_vA4qsEs

At the hearing, the defendants submitted Defendant No. 1 Preparatory Brief.

In the defendant's first preparatory brief, it was argued that forcing married couples to have the same surname does not violate Articles 13, 14, or 24 of the Constitution.

At the hearing, the defense team (Mr. Miura) asked the government to respond to the following questions:

• On page 17 of the First Preparatory Brief, the Defendant argues that "even if the use of maiden names as common names becomes widespread, a married couple and their children have the same surname, and in situations where an individual indicates that they are a family member, the surname may be used as a family name," and that the surname does not lose its function of publicly announcing the family name to the public. But what specific situations are envisaged as "situations where an individual indicates that they are a family member"? For example, does a situation where a person checks a family register to confirm kinship relationships fall under "situations where an individual indicates that they are a family member"?
• On page 18 of the first preparatory brief, the defendant argues that "the provisions regarding the surnames of married couples reflect the fact that a legitimate child is defined as an entity that has a connection to each spouse such that the child can equally use the same surname as each spouse (Article 790, paragraph 1 of the same law)," but what does "a connection to each spouse such that the child can equally use the same surname as each spouse" mean?
• In response to the plaintiffs' assertion that "contracting states of a treaty (note: international human rights treaty) have a legal obligation to abide by that treaty (Article 26 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties)" (p. 64 of the complaint), the defendant has admitted and denied this by stating that "the remainder is disputed" (Reply No. 3-7(i), p. 21). Does this mean that the defendant believes that even if a country is a contracting state of a treaty, it has no obligation to abide by the treaty?

The presiding judge also asked the defendant the following questions: 1) Was the statement on page 17 of the First Preparatory Document, "The expansion of the use of common names will to a certain extent alleviate the disadvantage suffered by those who change their surname upon marriage," intended to acknowledge that the disadvantage has not been eliminated? 2) There is an argument that the case must be examined from the perspective of whether there are circumstances that warrant a change based on the Supreme Court decisions of 2015 and 2021, but what was the basis for this?

The defendant refrained from answering any questions from the plaintiff or the presiding judge in court, and instead agreed to respond in writing by July 11th (at the defendant's request, the plaintiff's side agreed to submit the above questions in writing).

At the next hearing, the plaintiff will refute the first preparatory brief submitted by the defendant and will once again make its arguments regarding constitutional interpretation.

A project is underway to collect statements from people about the sense of loss of identity that comes with changing their surname, and the anxiety that comes with being forced to give up their marriage, and to submit these in the lawsuit.

https://bessei.net/call_for_statements/

A name is a personal right, and the current Civil Code's system of forcing married couples to have the same surname is a violation of human rights! Let's get our voices heard at the court!

The next hearing for the Sapporo lawsuit is as follows. We hope you will attend the next hearing and report session.

Date and time: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 from 11:00

Venue: Sapporo District Court, Courtroom 805

We appreciate your continued support.

On May 15th, the fourth oral argument hearing was held in the third selective separate surnames lawsuit (Tokyo).

The hearing was held in Courtroom 103, and many supporters were in attendance in the audience for the hearing and hearing report meeting.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and reports, and to everyone who watched the live stream, for your continued support.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of81KiDgbNA

At the hearing, the defendants submitted a defendant's brief (2) arguing that the plaintiffs lacked the grounds for lawsuit, and a defendant's brief (3) refuting the plaintiffs' claim of unconstitutionality.

In the defendant's preparatory brief (3), the plaintiff argued that there was no need to admit or deny the part of the claim that questioned compliance with international human rights treaties. The plaintiff therefore considered this attitude of the defendant to be problematic and submitted the defendant's preparatory brief (10) requesting a clear admission or denial of the part regarding compliance with the treaties.

In the next hearing, we plan to refute Defendant's Brief (2) and Defendant's Brief (3) submitted by the defendant, and will be given approximately three months to prepare the rebuttal.

The defendants' argument is that, based on the 2015 Grand Bench Judgment and the 2021 Grand Bench Decision, the judgment should not be changed even based on the circumstances asserted by the plaintiffs.In response to this, the plaintiffs have informed the court that they will submit a written rebuttal arguing that the judgment framework of the 2015 Grand Bench Judgment and the 2021 Grand Bench Decision was incorrect in the first place, and that even if it were correct, given changes in society, the current provisions, which do not allow for the exception of couples getting married while retaining each other's surnames, are unconstitutional.

We are also currently working on a project to collect statements from people about the sense of loss of identity that comes with changing their surname, and the anxiety that comes from being forced to give up their marriage, and to submit these to the lawsuit.

https://bessei.net/call_for_statements/
A name is a personal right, and the current Civil Code's mandatory system of requiring married couples to have the same surname is a violation of human rights! Let's get our voices heard in court!

◆

The next hearing date for the Tokyo lawsuit is as follows. We hope you will attend the next hearing and report session.

Date and time: Monday, September 1, 2025 from 11:00 a.m.

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103 (Grand Court)

We appreciate your continued support.

Since we filed lawsuits with the Tokyo and Sapporo District Courts on March 8, 2024, we have received tremendous support from all of you. We sincerely appreciate your generosity. So far, we have incurred various expenses, including travel costs for plaintiffs and lawyers, printing fees for legal documents, communication costs, and research expenses. Thanks to your donations, we have been able to continue the lawsuit.

In September 2024, the Liberal Democratic Party's presidential election, as well as the House of Representatives election in October, brought the issue of introducing an optional separate surname system for married couples into political debate. Furthermore, on October 29, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued its fourth recommendation urging Japan to amend its laws to allow married individuals to retain their birth names. While momentum toward introducing the optional separate surname system continues to grow, there remains strong opposition in the National Diet, where many believe that the use of a commonly known name (alias) is sufficient. This reinforces our belief that it is crucial to win in court and establish that the requirement for married couples to share the same surname is unconstitutional.

The trial has only just begun, and it will take time to obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court. In the meantime, we must continue to raise awareness about the lawsuit through post-trial report meetings, events, and the creation of promotional materials. Additionally, we need to conduct further large-scale research to strengthen our legal arguments.

Another related lawsuit highlights the issue further: A couple who married in New York submitted their marriage documents to Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo, on June 13, 2022, in accordance with Article 41, Paragraph 1 of the Family Register Act. However, since they chose not to adopt a single shared surname, the Chiyoda Ward mayor refused to accept their marriage registration. When the couple challenged this decision in the Tokyo Family Court, the court ruled on January 10, 2025, that while their marriage was valid, the rejection of their registration was not unjustified. This ruling confirms that even when a couple marries abroad with separate surnames, their marriage is legally recognized in Japan. However, due to Article 750 of the Civil Code, they cannot officially document their marital status in the family register. This case further exposes the irrationality of Article 750, making it clear that legal reform is urgently needed to eliminate such contradictions.

The government has substantial manpower and financial resources, whereas the plaintiffs and legal team are private individuals. It is only through your generous contributions that we have the courage and strength to fight this legal battle. To achieve our second fundraising goal, we sincerely ask for your continued support. Thank you for standing with us.

On January 31, the second oral argument hearing for the Third Optional Separate Surnames for Married Couples Lawsuit (Sapporo) was held.

Like the previous hearing, the hearing was held in the largest courtroom in the Sapporo District Court (Room 805), and all attendees were able to observe the proceedings.

Many people also attended the subsequent briefing session, and the media also came to cover the event, which once again demonstrated the high level of public interest in the lawsuit regarding separate surnames for married couples.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and report sessions, and to everyone who watched the live broadcast.

An archive of the report can be found here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwvL01LmWPI

At the hearing, the plaintiffs submitted preparatory briefs Nos. 3 to 8.

The overview is as follows:

Third Preparatory Brief: Rebuttal to Defendant's Argument

Fourth Preparatory Document Violation of Article 14

Preparatory document No. 5: Admission or denial of the treaty claims

6. Preparatory Documents: Current status of academic debate

Section 7: Preparatory documents: Debate in the Diet is unlikely

Preparatory document No. 8: International trends regarding the retention of surnames after marriage

The defense team submitted a petition to the court prior to the hearing, requesting that summaries of preparatory briefs No. 3, No. 4, No. 7, and No. 8 be presented at the hearing.

However, at the hearing, the court, just as it had done at the first hearing, issued a directive stating that "statements would not be permitted as they would not be beneficial," and a summary of arguments was not able to be presented.

The defense raised an objection, but that was also rejected by the court.

The preparatory documents and supporting materials submitted at this hearing are the same as those in the Tokyo lawsuit.

For documents, please see the litigation documents page.

The next hearing in the Sapporo lawsuit is as follows:

The next hearing is scheduled to see the defendant country submit a written rebuttal to the plaintiffs' claims.

Please come and observe the hearing and the report session. Thank you very much.

Date and time: Wednesday, June 11, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

Venue: Sapporo District Court, Courtroom 805

On January 16th, the third oral argument hearing in the Third Optional Separate Surnames for Married Couples Lawsuit (Tokyo) was held.

This time, the hearing was held in the Grand Bench, and all of those who attended were able to observe the hearing. Many people also attended the briefing session that followed, and the media also came to cover the case, which once again demonstrated the high level of interest in the lawsuit regarding separate surnames for married couples from society.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and report sessions, and to everyone who watched the live broadcast.

An archive of the report can be found here.

https://www.youtube.com/live/8DJypVRQrrQ

At the hearing, the plaintiffs submitted Preparatory Briefs No. 3 to No. 9. Attorneys Miura, Terahara, and Tachibana gave oral statements on the gist of Preparatory Brief No. 3 (counterargument against the defendant's argument), Preparatory Brief No. 4 (violation of Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution), Preparatory Brief No. 8 (not expecting a debate in the Diet), and Preparatory Brief No. 9 (international trends regarding the retention of surnames after marriage).

In the statement "Rebuttal to the Defendant's Arguments," in response to the Defendant's claim that the purpose of the same surname system for married couples is "to continue the custom of expressing the reality of their communal life through surnames" and "to foster or ensure a sense of unity in the family," the plaintiff argued that the above-mentioned "custom" was cultivated under the family system established in the Meiji Civil Code, which was based on the premise of women's subordination, and therefore should not continue, and that a Cabinet Office survey showed that over half of the public responded that separate surnames for married couples do not affect family unity.

In the statement on "violation of Article 14 of the Constitution," the court pointed out that although currently, wives can choose their surnames when they get married, 75% of couples do not discuss the choice of surname, and more than 90% choose the husband's surname, which indicates that the mindset cultivated under the family system that "women should change their surnames when they get married" remains, and that such gender-discriminatory mindsets and customs need to be actively overcome.The court also emphasized that the 2015 Grand Bench ruling also pointed out that "if there is an influence from discriminatory mindsets and customs existing in society, it is in line with the spirit of Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Constitution to eliminate such influences and work to maintain substantial equality between spouses."

In his statement about "not expecting a debate in the Diet," he pointed out that as early as the 1950s, the Legislative Council had made it clear that separate surnames for married couples was a reserved matter to be considered, that the problems with the same surname system for married couples continued to be pointed out in the 1970s and 1980s, that despite the Ministry of Justice publishing the outline of a specific bill in 1996, all bills since 1997 have been scrapped due to strong opposition from ruling party lawmakers, and that the religious right wing is behind the opposition. He also emphasized that the Supreme Court's constitutional ruling has not promoted debate in the Diet, but rather serves as a justification for the Diet's stance of not starting concrete discussion.

In her statement on "International trends regarding the retention of surnames after marriage," she pointed out that legal reforms have been implemented in other countries, and that Japan is now the only country in the world that has adopted a system in which married couples have the same surname, and that Japan has been repeatedly recommended to do so by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). She emphasized that despite this global trend to correct discrimination against women regarding surnames, Japan has been completely left behind.

The preparatory documents submitted at this hearing were prepared after analyzing a vast amount of records, including parliamentary minutes.

It's a long document, but we hope you'll take a look at it on the litigation documents page.

The next hearing for the Tokyo lawsuit is as follows. Please come and observe the hearing and attend the report session. It will be a great encouragement for us.

Date and time: Thursday, May 15, 2025, 11:00 a.m.

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103 (Grand Court)

On October 21st, the first oral argument hearing for the Third Selective Separate Surnames for Married Couples Lawsuit (Sapporo) was held.

The hearing was held in Courtroom 805, the largest courtroom in the Sapporo District Court, with 80 seats for spectators, but almost all of the seats were filled, showing the high level of interest in this lawsuit. The briefing session that followed was also attended by many members of the public, not just members of the media.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and report sessions, and to everyone who watched the live broadcast.

You can view the archive of the report session here. (An edited version will be uploaded at a later date.)

https://youtube.com/live/S_O6qd6hZ1E

At the hearing, the plaintiffs submitted the complaint, as well as the first and second preparatory briefs on "changes in circumstances" and "expansion and limitations of the use of nicknames," and the defendant (the government) submitted an answer to the complaint. (The contents are almost the same as those in the preceding Tokyo lawsuit.) Please see the preparatory briefs on the lawsuit materials page.

The next hearing for the Sapporo lawsuit is as follows. Please come and observe the hearing and attend the report session. It will be a great encouragement for us.

Date and time: January 31, 2025 (Friday) 10:30~

Venue: Sapporo District Court, Courtroom 805 (Grand Court)

We appreciate your continued support.

On September 20th, the second oral argument hearing in the Third Selective Separate Surnames Lawsuit (Tokyo) was held.

Since the hearing was held in the Grand Court this time, everyone who attended was able to observe the hearing. Many people also attended the report session that followed.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and report sessions, and to everyone who watched the live broadcast.

An archive of the report can be found here.

https://www.youtube.com/live/SzC8KuxW2bE

At the hearing, the defendant (government) submitted specific rebuttals, and on the plaintiff's side, lawyers Kawami and Hisamichi presented their opinions regarding "changes in circumstances" and "expansion and limitations of the use of nicknames."

In his opinion statement on "changing circumstances," he pointed out that 77 years have passed since the introduction of the same-surname system for married couples in 1947, and that public attitudes towards marriage and family have changed significantly, particularly with more women entering the workforce and an increasing number of voices in support of a selective system of separate surnames for married couples, especially among younger people. He also mentioned that many local assemblies have adopted positions calling for the introduction of a selective system of separate surnames for married couples, and that the United Nations has repeatedly called for legal reform, and, citing concrete data, emphasized that the rationality of the current system has been lost.

In the opinion statement on "Expansion and Limitations of the Use of Common Names," while acknowledging the current situation in which the use of common names under maiden names is gradually being accepted in society, the panel emphasized that this is not a reason not to allow separate surnames for married couples. The panel specifically pointed out that the use of common names does not resolve the violation of personal rights that accompanies a change of surname, and creates an irrational situation that entails new costs and burdens. The panel also cited issues such as the unstable legal status of the use of common names, which is not accepted especially in international situations, the confusion that arises from the use of maiden names and registered names, and the increased risk of personal identification. The panel emphasized that the judiciary should not escape from the stopgap measure of using common names, which the parties have acquired at great cost, but should proactively address this issue.

We hope you will also take a look at the preparatory documents, which are based on detailed analyses of each case, on the litigation documents page.

The next hearing for the Tokyo lawsuit is as follows. Please come and observe the hearing and attend the report session. It will be a great encouragement for us.

Date and time: January 16, 2025 (Monday) 11:00~

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103 (Grand Court)

In addition, a lawsuit will begin in Sapporo on October 21st.

Date and time: Monday, October 21, 2024, 11:10am (approximately 30 minutes)

Venue: Sapporo District Court, Courtroom 805 (Grand Court)

12:00-13:00 Deadline report session

Venue: Hokkaido High School Teachers' Center, Main Conference Room (Odori Nishi 12-chome, Chuo-ku, Sapporo)

Please also attend the deadline report meeting.

You can watch the live stream on YouTube here.

https://youtube.com/live/S_O6qd6hZ1E?feature=share

It's also uploaded on the besseiTV live streaming page.

https://www.youtube.com/@besseitv1315/streams

Here is a flyer about the schedule for the Sapporo lawsuit:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1057o2_xpgTbPgVR1ZVoQltGtUde06J9i/view?usp=drive_linkPreview

We appreciate your continued support.

To everyone who supported us

Thank you for your support in our crowdfunding campaign to realize optional separate surnames for married couples! Thanks to you, we have successfully reached our first goal of 5 million yen.

We are truly grateful for all of your support, not only through donations, but also through comments and social media, and for speaking out together with us. We are moving forward one step at a time towards a society where optional separate surnames for married couples is a reality.

The second oral argument in the Tokyo lawsuit will be held on September 20th at 2pm in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court. There will be a courtroom action from 1:30pm, and a report meeting after the hearing. The first hearing for the Sapporo lawsuit has been set for October 21st at 11:10am in Courtroom 805 of the Sapporo District Court. There will also be a courtroom action and a report meeting after the hearing. We will announce the details on the website once they are decided, so we hope that many of you will participate. We hope that many of you will participate. Meanwhile, the government has submitted a specific written rebuttal, and the offensive and defensive battle will now begin in earnest.

This lawsuit will be a long battle, so the current donations may eventually become insufficient due to the need to submit written opinions, conduct investigations, hold report meetings, etc. We will remain open to donations at any time during the lawsuit, so we hope you will continue to spread the word about this crowdfunding campaign.

We are also considering setting a second goal.

Thank you for your continued support!

On June 27th, the first oral argument hearing for the Third Selective Separate Surnames Lawsuit (Tokyo) was held.

Many people gathered in search of the 20 seats available for spectators. Although there were many people who were unable to get into the gallery, the sight of so many people lining up to receive the spectator tickets showed their support. Thank you very much.

As the spectator seats were filled this time, from the next trial onwards the trial will be held in a larger courtroom, so we hope you will all come.

At the hearing, the complaint and answer submitted by each party were presented, and documentary evidence was examined.

The defendant's (government) reply consisted only of arguments regarding the requirements necessary for the lawsuit to be pending (the issue of whether the case constitutes a legal dispute that should be decided in court) and an admission, denial, and rebuttal to the plaintiff's arguments. It was confirmed that the defendant would submit a rebuttal to the claims of this lawsuit at the next meeting or later.

Plaintiffs Uchiyama Yukari, Koike Yukio, Kurokawa Touko (pseudonym), Nezu Mitsuru (pseudonym), Satoko (pseudonym), and Kuro (pseudonym) made statements.

Each plaintiff spoke to the court about their experiences of choosing to use a common name in a legal marriage or choosing to live in a common-law marriage, and about the disadvantages of not being allowed to have separate surnames for married couples, the pain they have endured, and their strong desire to realize a system of optional separate surnames for married couples. We have uploaded summaries of each of their statements to the lawsuit documents page, so please take a look.

List of litigation documents

I believe you will be able to get a sense of each person's life and real thoughts, which cannot be fully conveyed from just the small parts extracted from the news reports.

Afterwards, the head of the legal team, Terahara, made a statement on behalf of the couple. He explained that the current system of same surname for married couples, which forces couples to choose between one of them changing their surname in order to marry, or both giving up on the marriage in order to keep their surname, violates the Constitution and treaties, and is not a political issue but a human rights issue in which basic human rights are being violated. He called on the judiciary to play an appropriate role.

The report meeting after the hearing was also very lively. After the plaintiffs and their lawyers shared their impressions, we also had special guest, Professor Komamura Keigo of Keio University and NO YOUTH NO JAPAN co-representative, Nojo Momoko, give their comments. Professor Komamura said, "The use of nicknames is nothing more than a band-aid against the bloodshed caused by Article 750 of the Civil Code," and Nojo spoke about the many young people who are "waiting for a separate surname." This was an opportunity for the participants to once again feel the need to realize a separate surname system.

A report of the meeting will be posted on the Support Group's website at a later date.

The defendant (government) side will make a full-scale rebuttal from the next hearing onwards. The plaintiffs, legal team, and supporters will continue to do their best, so we ask for your continued support.

A list of the day's news coverage is posted on the Support Group's website.

https://bessei.net/20240628-2/