We would like to inform you of the schedule for the second oral argument at the appellate court in the Tokyo First Litigation ``Freedom to Marry for All''.

The first Tokyo lawsuit, "Freedom to Marry for All," was ruled unconstitutional on November 30, 2022, pointing out a violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, and is currently being heard in the appellate court. The dates and schedule of the second report meeting are as follows.

We will benefit from your support in various ways, such as observing trials, participating in and watching trial report sessions, and posting on SNS. Thank you for your continued support.

[Tokyo First Litigation (Appellate Court)]

Second oral argument date

Date and time: Tuesday, October 31, 2023, 10:30 a.m.

Venue Tokyo High Court Courtroom 101

Case number Tokyo High Court Reiwa 5 (Ne) No. 292

*It is expected that attendance tickets will be distributed. On the day of the hearing, lottery tickets will be distributed at the Tokyo High Court. For more information, please check the court website here .

[Date report meeting]

Tuesday, October 31, 2023 around noon (scheduled)

Details such as time and location will be announced at a later date.

■The latest information on the Tokyo lawsuit "Freedom of Marriage for Everyone" is posted on the official account of the Tokyo Bar Association, X (formerly Twitter) !

■In addition, court documents, opinion statements, etc. are available here.

⇒ CALL4 case site

"Freedom to Marry for Everyone" This is a notice from the Tokyo Bar Association.

We would like to inform you that the 9th oral argument date for the 2nd Tokyo lawsuit entitled "Freedom to Marry for All" has been held.

Date and time: September 28, 2023 from 14:00 to 14:40

Venue: Tokyo District Court Courtroom 103

Judges: Chief Judge Tomoyuki Hizawa, Judge Kenji Kaneda, Judge Ryohei Kawamoto

(Civil Affairs 44th Department A Council 1A Section)

Attendance: 5 plaintiffs, 14 plaintiff attorneys, 4 defendant attorneys

[Contents of the 9th oral argument date]

1 Statement of opinion by plaintiff and other representatives

(1) Opinion statement regarding Plaintiffs' 27th Preparatory Document (Stigma Document) ( Click here for the full summary of the opinion statement)

The plaintiffs' attorney, Hojo, gave his opinion on the plaintiffs' 27th preliminary document, which alleges the stigma surrounding sexual minorities.

(2) Opinion statement regarding Plaintiffs' 28th Preparatory Document ( Click here for the full summary of the opinion statement)

The plaintiffs' attorney, Yuhara, presented his opinion on the plaintiffs' 28th Preparatory Document, which asserts the trends in international human rights law regarding legal marriage for same-sex couples.

2 Submission of each document ( Click here for the URL link where each document is posted)

Between the previous date and the current date, the plaintiffs submitted the 26th to 28th Preparatory Documents and a summary of the plaintiff's attorneys' opinions, and the defendant submitted the 7th Preparatory Document and made their statements on the respective dates. did. Additionally, between the previous date and the current date, the plaintiffs submitted Explanation of Evidence 26-28 and Exhibits A433-460, Exhibits 2, and the Defendant submitted Explanation of Evidence ⑷ and Exhibits Otsu No. 32-34, respectively.

3 Future plans

The next 10th oral argument date, November 30, 2023, is the date for questioning all plaintiffs and their families.

The interrogation is scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m.

Everyone, please come and watch to support us. It is expected that the audience will be selected by lottery.

[Date report meeting]

We held a hybrid due date report meeting on YouTube and real life, and streamed it live (no archive).

Date and time: September 28, 2023 from 3:30 p.m.

 Speakers: Mr. Yamagata (plaintiff), Ms. Hatogai (plaintiff), Attorney Sawasaki, Attorney Hojo, Attorney Inoue (moderator)

sorry

sorry.

Date: June 29, 2023, 15:30-16:00

Venue: Courtroom No. 802, Sapporo High Court

Judges: Presiding Judge Kiyofumi Saito Judge Masahiro Yoshikawa Judge Yasuhiro Ito

Contents:

"Freedom of Marriage for All" The 4th Appeal Trial for the Hokkaido Lawsuit has been Held!

The following events took place today.

[Oral argument date]

1 Renewal of arguments

Since the presiding judge was replaced, a procedure called "renewal of argument" was carried out, which is supposed to be done after the replacement of the judge.

2 Statements of the 11th , 12th, 13th and 14th briefs submitted by the appellants (plaintiffs)

In the 11th Preparatory Document , the appellants apply the current system to same-sex couples as it is with respect to the provisions on the presumption of legitimacy regarding biological children, the provisions regarding adoption and parental rights, and the special provisions of the Civil Code regarding assisted reproductive technology. I have verified that there is no problem with

In addition, in the 12th brief , the appellants argued that the judgment of the Osaka District Court on June 20, 2022 (Reiwa 4) and the judgment of the Tokyo District Court on November 30, 2022 (Reiwa 4) made an error in thinking. He argued that it would be inappropriate to leave the issue of same-sex marriage up to debate in the Diet.

In the 13th Brief , the appellants argued that it was not appropriate to create an institution similar to marriage without applying the institution of marriage to same-sex couples in the same manner as to heterosexual couples, and that such an institution would not be appropriate. He argued that the establishment of this would rather lead to the entrenchment of discrimination against same-sex couples.

Furthermore, the appellants stated in the 14th Preparatory Document that although the protection and understanding of same-sex couples are advancing in foreign countries, the United Nations, local governments, private companies, the judiciary, and public opinion, the Japanese government and Not only has there been no concrete discussion in the Diet to allow same-sex marriage, but discriminatory remarks against same-sex couples have been made one after another. He argued that one thing was obvious.

3 Interrogation of the evidence submitted by the appellant (plaintiff) (A No. 517 to A No. 869)

The evidence submitted by the appellants was examined (a necessary procedure for the court to accept the submitted evidence).

4 Statement of summary of the brief by the appellant and litigation counsel

Attorney-at-law Nobuko Suda, representing the appellants, prepared the contents of the 11th brief , Attorney Hiromi Minagawa prepared the contents of the 12th brief , Attorney Takeharu Kato prepared the contents of the 13th brief , and Takuya Hayashi prepared the 14th preparation. Briefly explain the contents of the document to the judge and the audience.

The documents submitted by this date, including the contents of the opinions of the appellants, litigation attorneys, and the appellants, will be made public in Call 4's Litigation for Freedom of Marriage for All (Same-Sex Marriage Litigation). Please take a look.

[Exchange meeting]

After the 4th Oral Argument Date was over, the appellants Ryosuke, Takashi, C, and Eri Nakatani took the lead in holding a networking event!

Date: June 29, 2023, 16:20-17:15

Venue: Large meeting room on the 5th floor of the Sapporo Bar Association Building

Contents:

1 Appellant (plaintiff) talk corner

The appellants, Mr. Ryosuke, Mr. Takashi, Mr. C, and Ms. Eri Nakatani, talked about many things, such as their impressions of the trial date and impressions of the new presiding judge!

2 Explanation of the due date

Lawyer Yuko Motohashi explained the contents of today's date!

3 Messages and questions from participants

We received many comments from everyone at the venue, including their own thoughts and ideas, and messages of support. thank you very much!

4 Notice

Sapporo Rainbow Pride, Chikaho de Pride, and film festivals were announced!

The circle of support for sexual minorities is getting wider and wider! Please pay attention to various events that will be held in the future! ! !

[Date report delivery]

After the oral argument date and the exchange meeting were over, the date report was distributed!

Date: June 29, 2023, 18:30-19:30

1 due date report

Attorney Yusuke Takahashi from the Hokkaido litigation defense team reported today's date!

2 Interview with Appellant Eri Nakatani

Lawyer Fumiko Suda, a member of the defense team for the Hokkaido lawsuit, interviewed Ms. Eri Nakatani, an appellant for the Hokkaido lawsuit, about her thoughts on the date of the trial and her thoughts on future lawsuits!

3 Commentary on Nagoya District Court Decisions and Fukuoka District Court Decisions

Yoko Mizutani, a member of the defense team for the Aichi lawsuit, explained the decision of the Nagoya District Court, and Kenichi Ishii, a member of the defense team for the Kyushu lawsuit, explained the decision of the Fukuoka District Court!

4 Commentary on District Court Judgment

Lawyer Takeharu Kato compared the judgments of the five district courts and opened the differences between the judgments of each region.

You can watch the due date report distribution in the archive distribution, so please take a look!

Click here for the URL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyHRWE6ZSvA

[Next date]

The next deadline is Tuesday, October 31, 2023 from 3:30 pm to 4:30 pm.

Surprisingly, the appeal hearing in Sapporo is likely to be the last one next time!

At the next date, lawyers of the defense team will summarize and explain the claims so far, and the appellants' opinions and attorneys' opinions will be made.

I will say it again.

The hearing in Sapporo is going to be the last time... next time!

Please come and visit us! !

The fact that there are as many spectators as possible will be a great message to the judges of the Sapporo High Court.

Whether you cry or laugh, the hearing in Sapporo will be the last.

The lawyers will do their best until the end! ! !

Ladies and gentlemen, please clear your schedule and gather at the Sapporo High Court on the afternoon of Tuesday, October 31st!

Thank you very much for your support! ! !

News from Sapporo!

On May 30, the Nagoya District Court clearly pointed out that the prohibition of same-sex marriage violates Article 24, Paragraph 2 and Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

Then, on June 8, the Fukuoka District Court also pointed out that the refusal to give same-sex couples the benefits that can be obtained through marriage between opposite-sex couples is in violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. I was.

With this, five district courts in Sapporo, Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Fukuoka have ruled on the lawsuit for freedom of marriage for all, and four district courts, excluding Osaka, have pointed out the violation of the Constitution. .

All that's left is for the country to enact legislation!

And the discussion at the Sapporo High Court is also at the end of the day.

I believe that the first appeal judgment in Japan is approaching.

The trial in the appeals court is also nearing its climax, so please watch over us from the spectator seats!

〇Date of the 4th Oral Argument

June 29 , 2023 (Thursday) from 15:30 to 16:00

Sapporo High Court 8th floor (same building as Sapporo District Court)

Court 802

*It is unlikely that tickets will be distributed.

〇 Exchange meeting

Thursday, June 29, 2023 , from 16:15 to 17:15

Sapporo Bar Association Building 5F A - C _ _ _

Let's talk about the rulings of the Nagoya District Court and the Fukuoka District Court while looking back on the dates at the Sapporo High Court!

〇 Report delivery

June 29 , 2023 (Thursday) 18 : 30-

YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/live/iyHRWE6ZSvA?feature=share

Guest appearances from the Aichi litigation defense team and the Kyushu litigation defense team!

Please attend not only the hearing at the Sapporo High Court, but also the exchange meeting and report delivery!

Thank you for your continued support! ! !

This is a notice from the Tokyo Lawyers.

I would like to report that the first oral argument date for the Tokyo First Lawsuit Appellate Court (filed on February 14, 2019) has been held.

Date: June 23, 2023 10:30-11:30

Venue: Courtroom 101, Tokyo High Court

Judges: Presiding Judge Sonoe Taniguchi, Judge Naohisa Suzuki, Grand Judge Saito (Second Civil Division)

Attendance: 5 appellants, 15 representatives of the appellant, 4 representatives of the appellee

[Details of the first oral argument date]

1 Submission of each document (URL link of each document is here → link )

I have stated the appeal letter, the statement of reasons for appeal Vol. In addition, the Appellant's Evidence Explanations 1-5 and Evidence A548-645 were submitted.

The answer to the appeal filed by the appellee by this date has been stated. In addition, Appellee's Evidence Statement 1, Otsu 30-35 was submitted.

In addition, both the appellant and the appellee stated the results of the oral arguments of the original trial.

Finally, since the opinion statement summary is not intended to be treated as an allegation and not as evidence, it was decided to compile it into the first category of the court record.

2 statement of opinion

(1) Statement of opinion by the appellant, Ms. Ogawa (Click here for the full text of the summary of the statement of opinion → link )

Mr. Ogawa, the appellant, once again conveyed to the judge in charge of the appeals the voices of the young parties involved in the ruling of the related lawsuit and his half-life, which he had conveyed in the first instance. In addition, Mr. Ogawa asked the appeals court to make a decision that gives hope to many parties, rather than despairing about the future.

(2) Statement of opinion by the appellant, Ms. Ono (Click here for the full text of the summary of the statement of opinion → link )

The appellant, Mr. Ono, raised three children with his partner, Mr. Nishikawa, and faced a dizzyingly busy but happy life. We talked about the various barriers that arose. Then, Mr. Ono told the judge, "Only the law does not match the actual situation, so please change this current situation, which is causing trouble not only to the person concerned but also to those around them, and above all, to the children. I hope you will be happy. It will only increase the number of people, and it will not cause any inconvenience to those who do not use this system." "I want to end the 20 years that I have been feeling as a family. We have lived as a family. That's why I want to be a family legally."

(3) Representative Maiko Sato's opinion statement (Click here for the full text of the opinion statement → link )

The appellant's representative, Maiko Sato, expressed her opinion that many young people are deprived of hope because various provisions of the current law limit marriage only to legally opposite sexes. Sato talked about how the lack of freedom and equality in marriage is depriving the hopes of not only the appellants but also the children and young people of sexual minorities. He stated that he believes that the judiciary has the power to give hope to children and young people as well as children and young people, and to give hope to many people who will be born in the future so that they do not despair in the society in which they live. I was.

(4) Representative Nakagawa's opinion statement (Click here for the full text of the opinion statement → link )

The appellant's representative, Nakagawa, asked, "Why is this different?" ”, and clearly expressed his criticism of the first-instance decision on Article 24, paragraphs 1, 2, and 14 of the Constitution. Nakagawa also said, ``In the process of overcoming immaturity step by step, when people are divided only by following traditional values, the Constitution teaches us that we can find new interpretations of constitutional clauses. Even in this new era, we are trying to realize the dignity of the individual.When the Constitution takes a step forward, we, the judges, will bear the responsibility." Officials, please face the reality of the appellants and the history of discrimination, let the Constitution demonstrate its true power, and hand down a clear unconstitutional ruling. Please make everyone's life worth living and hopeful."

3 Exchanges on the date (overview)

First, the presiding judge confirmed the future claims and proof plans of both sides.

The appellant made a counterargument to the answer to the appeal submitted by the appellee, argued that the marriage system, rather than a system similar to marriage, is legally necessary for same-sex couples, and the legislative body's response to the LGBT understanding promotion law. He replied that he plans to make a claim that the judicial branch should make a decision on this issue based on his attitude.

The appellee replied that it basically believes that all of its allegations have been proven, but that it will consider the appellant's new allegations, including the possibility of making a counterargument.

Next, the presiding judge will provide the appellants with (1) a specific explanation of the legislative measures that the appellants should argue, and (2) specific details of the deviation and abuse of legislative discretion necessary to be judged to be illegal under the State Reparations Act. was pointed out.

In addition, the presiding judge reviewed the original judgment, and after confirming the definitions of the provisions of this case (the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Registration Law concerning marriage), the issue of the original judgment was the constitutionality of the provisions. In the first instance, the legal system sought by the plaintiffs was the same guarantee of marriage as for heterosexual marriage, but the first instance court's answer to the issue is as shown on page 52 of the original judgment. He denied the constitutional violation of the provisions and showed his understanding of the original ruling that it was unconstitutional because there was no legal system to become a family.

After that, in order to organize the discussion in the appeal trial, the presiding judge explained in detail what the legislation should be about the fact that there is no marriage system itself, what should be enacted, and why it should be enacted. There was a story that it is necessary to assert from the appellant.

After the above exchange, the judge instructed the appellant to (1) specify and substantiate the legislative act obligation, (2) grounds for the legislative act obligation (content), and (3) supplement the document regarding the clarity of the violation of the legislative act obligation. I was. In addition, the judge instructed the appellee to formulate an allegation that the appellee did not violate legislative discretion.

Finally, regarding the future progress schedule, the presiding judge said that, considering that the judgment will be made by March next year, I would like the appellant to exhaust all of its assertions by the next date, and to make supplementary arguments by the next date. He indicated that he would like to conclude the trial on the next date.

Based on this, the next date was determined after considering the time required for the appellant's document preparation.

4 Future plans

The court has designated the following dates as a schedule for the proceedings of the proceedings.

October 31, 2023, 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

2nd Oral Argument Date (Procedures open to the public/observation possible) @ Tokyo High Court Court No. 101

5 Debriefing session

[Online debriefing session]

A hybrid date briefing session was held between YouTube and real, and was broadcast live (no archive).

Date: June 23, 2023, 00:00-1:00

Speakers: Ms. Ogawa (appellant), Ms. Ono (appellant), Ms. Terahara, Ms. Uesugi, Mr. Keiji Kato, Ms. Maiko Sato, Mr. Nakagawa, Ms. Nakandakari (moderator)

"Freedom of Marriage for All" This is the date for the first appeal hearing of the first lawsuit in Tokyo.

"Freedom to Marry for All" The Tokyo District Court handed down the first instance judgment on November 30, 2022. This ruling states that the absence of a legal system in which same-sex couples become partners and families under current law constitutes a serious threat and obstacle to the survival of the individual, and is in violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. It was an epoch-making "unconstitutional ruling" that was a big step toward the realization of equality. On the other hand, the court concluded that Article 24, Paragraph 1 and Article 14 of the Constitution were constitutional, and the conclusion was that we, the plaintiffs, should be dismissed. Therefore, the first plaintiff appealed with the aim of realizing equality in marriage and the legalization of same-sex marriage, and the stage moved to the Tokyo High Court.

The appeals hearing will now begin. The details of the first date and the date report meeting are as follows.

[First Tokyo lawsuit (appeal)]

First oral argument date

Date and time June 23, 2023 (Friday) 10:30-

Venue Tokyo High Court Courtroom No. 101

Case number Tokyo High Court 2020 (Ne) No. 292

*On this date, the appellants (plaintiffs of the first instance), Ms. Yoko Ogawa and Ms. Haru Ono, and the plaintiff's attorney are scheduled to state their opinions.

* It is expected that there will be a ticket distribution. Lottery tickets will be distributed at the Tokyo High Court on the day of the hearing. Please check the court website for details.

[Debriefing session]

Date and time: Friday, June 23, 2023, around 12:00 to 13:00 (planned)

Place Lawyers Association Building 12th Floor

1-1-3 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

It will be distributed online in real time on the Malifor channel.

Click here for the distribution URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7qXdAh5xzA

(There are circumstances this time, and it will not remain in the archives)

■ "Freedom to Marry for All" The latest information on the Tokyo lawsuit is posted on the official Twitter account of Tokyo Lawyers !

■Also, court documents and statements of opinion are available here.

⇒ CALL4 case site

[Judgment report] We obtained an unconstitutional judgment (violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 and Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution)!

On May 30, 2023, the Nagoya District Court (Civil Division 8, Presiding Judge Osamu Nishimura) handed down the judgment of the first instance in the Aichi lawsuit, "Freedom of Marriage for All".

This judgment ruled that the provisions of the current Civil Code and the Family Register Law, which do not even provide a framework for notarization and legal protection for same-sex couples, violate Article 24, Paragraph 2 and Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution. .

〈Summary of date for delivery of judgment〉

Date: May 30, 2023, 2:00 p.m.

Venue: Nagoya District Court Court No. 1

Attendance: 1 plaintiff, plaintiff's attorney, defendant's attorney

<Overview of this judgment>

This ruling points out that marriage has become an extremely effective means of notarizing the relationship between two people and giving social recognition as a legitimate relationship, and that it is an effective means of protecting that relationship. It was evaluated that the fact that the framework for granting the rights is given is itself an important personal benefit , and the damage that cannot be received from that benefit is serious.

It concluded that it violates Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution and Article 14 of the Constitution, because it is not possible to sufficiently conceive of concrete opposition interests that justify the situation.

On the other hand, it ruled that the Diet's failure to take legislative measures to allow same-sex marriage is not illegal under the State Reparations Law, and dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for state reparations.

・Click here for the summary of this judgment

https://www.call4.jp/file/pdf/202305/0bb1a1ef8a4ef721e5ef7b79345dd6b4.pdf

・Click here for the full text of this judgment

https://www.call4.jp/file/pdf/202305/8f74a7b75d0a7dd661f629e914a96d32.pdf

<Significance of this judgment>

Clearly stating the unconstitutionality in relation to the two articles was a big step forward for the realization of marriage equality.

He pointed out that despite the fact that a huge number of same-sex couples have been prevented from enjoying their personal benefits for a long period of time, it is difficult to think of concrete oppositional benefits that justify this situation. The fact that he carefully refuted the government's claims also has important implications in the debate over legislation.

[Appeal report] The lawsuit continues to the appeal court

We are pleased to accept the above-mentioned significant judgment. But there are still challenges. In order to overcome such issues, I submitted a letter of appeal on June 12 and appealed.

We have three challenges to overcome:

(1) The decision left room for discussion as to whether a separate system would be acceptable.

(2) It was judged that the Diet could not be evaluated as having failed to take legislative measures for a long period of time without justifiable reasons, despite the fact that it was clearly unconstitutional.

(3) Legislative resolution through activities inside and outside litigation (realization of marriage equality and same-sex marriage)

I would like to achieve (3) a legislative solution as soon as possible by winning progress on points (1) and (2) in the appeals court, and by working together with everyone who supports the lawsuit to promote non-litigation initiatives. decided to appeal.

After this ruling, the judgment of the Fukuoka District Court also indicated that it was unconstitutional, and there were 4 unconstitutional judgments including this judgment. These rulings are the result of the thoughts of all the people who supported the trials, and the cumulative efforts of those who have fought against unfair discrimination and prejudice against sexual minorities.

I ask that you continue to lend your support to the realization of legislative solutions.

Sorry