We are pleased to report that the second oral argument hearing in the Deep Linear lawsuit has been held.

Date and time: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 15:00-15:30

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103

Judges: Presiding Judge Yukio Shinada, Presiding Judge Ikuko Benimi, Judge Haruhisa Okubo (Civil Division 2, Bc Section)

Attendance: 7 plaintiffs, 4 plaintiff attorneys, 4 defendant attorneys

Spectators: 36

[Future plans]

The next hearing will be held on Monday, February 17, 2025 from 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 103.

[Contents of the 2nd oral argument date]

1. Submission of documents

Between the previous due date and the current due date,

The plaintiff filed the preparatory brief (1) (Response to the request for clarification in the reply), Exhibits 62-1 to 64-2,

The defendant submitted preparatory brief (1) and Exhibits 3 to 19.

In addition, today the plaintiff submitted Exhibits 65-1 to 65-4, but the examination will be postponed until the next session.

2. Summary of exchanges held at this meeting

The Plaintiff has filed preparatory brief (1), and the Defendant has filed preparatory brief (1).

Evidence examination was conducted on Exhibit 62-1 to Exhibit 64-2 and Exhibit 3 to 19.

Plaintiff's Attorney Shima: I will refute your arguments next time, but I would like to confirm a few points.

① Defendant's preparatory brief (1) page 14 (u). Page 27 of the complaint is an argument regarding the period. The issue is the period until the start of use in terms of the necessity for public interest. In Exhibit 2, it is written that if the start date of use is set too far into the future, the public interest purpose will be denied. It says "will be contested," but I would like to confirm whether the intention is to contest whether it should be taken into consideration at all.

② Page 36 of the complaint. Regarding the scope of discretion of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. On page 53 of the defendant's preparatory brief (1), it is written that it is difficult to understand that there is discretion in the requirements of Article 16 of the Deep Sea Act, and that there is no discretion. In contrast, on page 55 of the same brief, it is written that it is left to the reasonable discretion of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. The gist of it is that it says that there is discretion in the requirements, but is there no discretion in the requirements, but is there a wide discretion in the judgment? Is it that there is no discretion in the requirements, but there is a wide discretion in the effect?

3) Defendant's Preparatory Brief (1) page 55 states "an original opinion based on speculation," but this refers to pages 28-31 of the complaint. Various facts are asserted on pages 28-31 of the same complaint. What points should be refuted and to what extent?

There are many other things, but they don't fit together as a whole. They need to be organized.

Defendant: ① Article 16, item 3 of the Deep Sea Act. Defendant's preparatory brief (1), p. 53 onwards, provides an appropriate rebuttal.

② Issues with each item of Article 16 of the Deep Sea Act. The issue of item 1 is that there is no discretion in requirements. Items 3 and 4 are asserted to have discretion in requirements. There is no discussion of discretion in effects.

3) The claim that the arguments on pages 53-54 are based on speculation.

Plaintiff: You are basing your argument on the same materials, but do you not refute the point that the period is important in determining whether the purpose is in the public interest?

Defendant: If we understand that the plaintiff's argument is based on the fact that the laws change from moment to moment based on the changing times, then it is based on speculation and there is no need to refute it.

Plaintiff: The plaintiff argues that at the time of judgment, the public interest necessity may be denied because the time of use of the deep underground is a very long way off, as written in Otsu 2. Does the defendant not take these arguments into consideration because they are all based on a time after the judgment?

Court: I think it would be good for the plaintiff to state in his next preparatory brief, including the points that are not in agreement.

Defendant: We do not dispute the contents of Exhibit 2 itself, so you may make your arguments based on that premise.

Court: Can we not go into detail on the transcript?

Plaintiff: Good

Court: In the written reply, there was a rebuttal to the contents of this case before the main merits. What is the plaintiff's plan for rebuttal going forward?

Plaintiff: For example, when it comes to public interest, we must make factual assertions, which in itself would require a considerable amount of rebuttal.

The issues will be narrowed down a little more, and until then it is possible to argue against the whole thing, but if we do so, there will be some disjointed and sloppy aspects, as in this case.

The issue is largely divided on whether the requirements of the Deep Sea Act are met and whether it is unconstitutional, so I think it would be easier to separate them.

The Court: If it were to be divided into two parts, how much preparation time would there be? If it were to be both?

Plaintiff: If we split it in half, I think we can get it out by the end of the year. If we split it in half, it should be around the end of January.

Plaintiff: Unforeseen circumstances have arisen in this era. What happened? Considering this, the permission to use the Deep Sea Act, Article 29, should be revoked. Paragraph 1, No. 2, No. 3. It can be revoked due to circumstances that arise after the decision is made. I think it is necessary to consider making it mandatory to revoke it. I will let you know that we are considering it.

Court: Due to the availability of Courtroom 103, I think it would be better to have both sides present their arguments and hold a hearing.

The next scheduled hearing will be the plaintiff's rebuttal statement, but would you like to hear an oral explanation of the contents of your preparatory documents?

Plaintiff: I strongly hope so.

Court: Please submit the document two weeks in advance. In comparison with the complaint, the statement will be about 10 minutes long.

Next session: Monday, February 17th, 14:00

Written rebuttals are due February 3rd. PPT slides are due by February 10th.

＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊｜

Thank you to everyone who came to listen.

We hope that many of you will attend the next hearing as well.

We are pleased to report that the first oral argument hearing in the Deepwater Linear lawsuit has been held.

Date and time: July 30, 2024 14:00-14:30

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103

Judges: Presiding Judge Yukio Shinada, Judge Ikuko Henmi, and Judge Haruhisa Okubo (Civil Division 2, Bc Section)

Attendance: 11 plaintiffs, 3 plaintiff attorneys, 3 defendant attorneys

(Audience: 60 people)

【Future plans】

The next hearing will be held on October 23, 2024 from 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 103.

[Contents of the 1st oral argument date]

1. Submission of documents

Between the previous hearing and this one, the plaintiff submitted a complaint and a motion to amend the complaint, Exhibits A-1 to A-61-3, and the defendant submitted an answer, Exhibits B-1-1 to B-1-2.

2. Summary of exchanges held at this meeting

The plaintiff filed a complaint and an amended complaint, and the defendant filed an answer.

Evidence examination was conducted on Exhibits 1 to 61-3 and Exhibits 1-1 to 1-2.

3. Statement of opinion

At this hearing, plaintiff Yukiko Hoshina and head of the defense team, lawyer Akihiro Shima, made statements.

[Reporting Session] 15:00-17:00

Venue: House of Representatives Second Members' Building, First Meeting Room

Attendees: Attorneys: Akihiro Shima, Yu Adachi, Nobuko Terada Plaintiffs: 10 people

Participants: 60

1. Professor Adachi explains using the PowerPoint presentation used by Attorney Shima in his statement

・Outline of the lawsuit ・What is the Deep Depth Law? ・Purpose and significance of this lawsuit ・Grounds for cancellation ・Unconstitutionality of the law ・Unconstitutional application

Reference: PowerPoint PDF (uploaded as litigation materials)

2. A word from the plaintiff who made the statement

3. Comments from Diet members

4. Speeches from participants

5. Question and Answer Session

6. Opening remarks from the head of the plaintiffs

7. Closing

Reference * 7/30 Tokyo Shimbun article https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/343977

YouTube: https://youtu.be/kN0i57ETlNM