1. Regarding the First-Instance Judgment

The first instance ruling was handed down on January 25, 2024, and the decision not to issue a regular passport to Yasuda was set aside as illegal and amounted to an abuse or deviation from the Minister of Foreign Affairs' discretionary power.

On the other hand, Yasuda's request to make it mandatory to issue a regular passport was not accepted, and the court ruled that Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act was constitutional. As a result, the issue of the Passport Act, which allows the Minister of Foreign Affairs to arbitrarily refuse to issue a regular passport on the grounds of refusing entry from a certain country, remains unresolved.

On February 7 of the same year, Yasuda appealed the decision and awaited the decision of the appellate court. The defendant (the government) also appealed the first instance ruling on the same day.

2. Request for donations for the appeal trial

At the first hearing stage, it was possible to use crowdfunding to request the writing of opinions etc. from Tomohiko Tatsumi (administrative law researcher) and Hiroki Abe (international human rights law researcher).

We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who donated.

In the appeal hearing, we plan to submit new opinions by constitutional scholars to prove that Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Law is unconstitutional. In addition, in response to the defendant (the state) filing an appeal, we plan to increase the number of our legal team and conduct defense activities with a more robust system.

However, in order to carry out the above-mentioned legal activities, we expect to need a total of approximately 1 million yen, but we do not currently have sufficient funds and would like to ask for new donations.

Your donations will be used to cover the costs of preparing a new opinion and legal fees.

If Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act is left unrevised, the current situation will not change, as not only journalists but various other people will remain at risk of having their freedom of movement arbitrarily deprived, and this will have a chilling effect on the freedom of overseas travel.

We would like to work together with you to protect the freedom of movement for all people, so we appreciate your support and cooperation.

1. Appeal by both parties

The first instance ruling was handed down on January 25, 2024, and the decision not to issue a regular passport to Yasuda was set aside as illegal and amounted to an abuse or deviation from the Minister of Foreign Affairs' discretionary power.

On the other hand, Yasuda's request to make it mandatory to issue a regular passport was not accepted, and the court ruled that Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act was constitutional. As a result, the issue of the Passport Act, which allows the Minister of Foreign Affairs to arbitrarily refuse to issue a regular passport on the grounds of refusing entry from a certain country, remains unresolved.

On February 7 of the same year, Yasuda appealed the decision and awaited the decision of the appellate court. The defendant (the government) also appealed the first instance ruling on the same day.

2. Statement of grounds for appeal

Both Mr. Yasuda and the government have now submitted their reasons for appeal.

The appeal statement has been uploaded to the litigation documents section, so please take a look.

3. Progress of the appeal trial

This case was pending at the 8th Civil Division of the Tokyo High Court.

At this time, no oral argument date has been set, but we will provide an update as soon as there are any further developments.

At 15:00 on January 25, 2024, the judgment in this case was handed down in Courtroom No. 703 of the Tokyo District Court.

The court ruled that the decision to not issue a passport to Mr. Yasuda was illegal as it was a deviation or abuse of the discretionary authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and rescinded the decision to not issue a passport. On the other hand, the court did not approve Mr. Yasuda's request for the issuance of a regular passport or his claim for damages under the National Reparations Act.

The reasons for the judgment are generally as follows.

1. Is there a fact that Mr. Yasuda was banned from entering Turkey for five years?

(Does it fall under the grounds for refusal of passport issuance in Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act?)

The court recognized the credibility of a document dated February 13, 2019 stating that the Turkish government had reported to the Japanese government that Mr. Yasuda was subject to a five-year entry ban, and the confirmed the existence of.

Until he left Turkey, Mr. Yasuda had not been notified of any entry ban or other measures.In fact, the Turkish government's Minister of Industry and Technology had been welcoming Mr. Yasuda by asking him to meet with him after his release. However, this claim was not accepted.

2 Does Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act violate the latter part of Article 13 of the Constitution and Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution?

The court believes that the freedom to travel abroad is not only limited to economic freedom, but is also connected to personal freedom, and is an opportunity for individuals to develop their own personality and participate in and contribute to will-formation in a democratic society. The court held that restrictions on the freedom to travel abroad are not permissible unless they can be said to be reasonable and to the extent necessary and unavoidable, as they also have the aspect of mental freedom.

Regarding the legislative purpose of Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act, in light of the discussions in the legislature at the time of enactment of the Passport Act and the revision history of the Act, the Passport Act is protected by Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act. The international trust envisions a ``bilateral relationship of trust'' between Japan and a country that has refused entry to certain travelers. In this regard, the defendant argued that the purpose of the same paragraph was to maintain international legal order based on multilateral relations and maintain relationships of trust in the international community, but this was not adopted.

However, the court held that the country that had denied entry to a particular traveler had stated, ``If Japan allows the person concerned to travel to a related country that affects the interests of the country that the country was trying to protect by banning the person from entering the country.'' The country's interests are likely to be harmed, and as a result, the relationship of trust between the country and Japan will be damaged.'' It is reasonable to restrict travel, including to related countries that have an impact on Japan, and the decision as to whether the relationship of trust between Japan and the other country will be harmed must be left to the discretion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The court determined that the provisions of Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act are constitutional as they are within reasonable and necessary limits.

3. Is this disposition of non-issuance unconstitutional or illegal?

Regarding the legality of specific passport issuance refusals, the court held that the purpose of Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act is to protect the relationship of trust between two countries, and that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, etc. Refusing a passport in a manner that restricts a person who has been banned from entering a country from traveling to areas where there is no possibility of damaging the bilateral relationship of trust between that country and Japan, It violates the purpose of Item 1 and is not permissible.''

On top of that, Mr. Yasuda's purpose in entering Syria in 2012 was to report on conflict areas, and the content of his research was valuable, so he decided to travel to areas other than Turkey and countries adjacent to Turkey. The court determined that even if travel was allowed, the relationship of trust between Japan and Turkey would not be damaged, and the decision to not issue the documents was deemed unconstitutional and illegal.

I will omit the description of the remaining points of contention.

Please see the full text of the judgment, which is posted in the litigation materials section.

Thank you for your continued attention.

At 11:00 a.m. on March 2, 2023, the 14th Oral Argument Date was held at Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court.

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

1 Written communication

Prior to this date, the defendant filed a brief (8) stating a counterargument to the "Plaint for Extension of Complaint" filed by the plaintiff before the previous date.

Plaintiffs have filed Plaintiffs' 13th and 14th Briefs. Each document is an allegation document stating a rebuttal to the defendant's brief (8).

Regarding the plaintiff's request for damages based on Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the National Compensation Law, based on the premise that the non-issuance of passports was illegal, the defendant stated in brief (8) that the non-issuance of passports Based on the time when the plaintiff was notified of the disposition, the claim for damages was extinguished due to the statute of limitations. Regarding this point, the 14th Preparatory Document states that the starting point for calculating the statute of limitations should be (1) the point at which the illegality of the non-issuance disposition (administrative disposition) is determined, rather than the time when the non-issuance disposition is announced. However, (2) considering that the plaintiff's freedom to travel overseas continues to be infringed due to the disposition of non-issuance, we add a counterargument that it should be considered that the statute of limitations has not progressed. (Furthermore, after this date, the plaintiff filed a further 15th brief to argue against the defendant's use of the statute of limitations.)

The thirteenth brief is to answer the matters requested by the defendant to explain on the previous date.

In addition, the plaintiff submitted a written correction of the statement of evidence, and identified the person to be questioned as a witness requested by the plaintiff as the Director of the Passport Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time of the non-issuance disposition.

2 Exchanges on the due date

On this date, the aforementioned briefs and documentary evidence were formally submitted.

Regarding the adoption of personal evidence, the plaintiff's attorney stated in the defendant's brief (8) that the presence or absence of the plaintiff's deportation from Turkey and the background, etc., were not relevant to the issue. He argued that this was an important background situation, and that the decision to accept or reject the testimony should not be made without clarifying this point.

However, the court stated that it was not considering recreating an issue summary table, etc. for this case, and that the time had come to decide whether or not to adopt testimony. He said he would reserve the right to take any witnesses he requested.

The plaintiff's attorney countered the court's order of litigation, but did not overturn the above judgment.

The next date has been set for 13:30 on June 20, 2023 (Tokyo District Court No. 703).

At the next hearing, the plaintiff himself will be questioned.

At 10:30 a.m. on December 20, 2022, the 13th Oral Argument Date was held at Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court.

I will report as follows, including written exchanges up to the deadline.

1 Written exchange

Prior to this date, Plaintiff filed an "Expanded Statement of Claim" and Plaintiff's Twelfth Brief.

In the petition for extension of claim, the plaintiff newly seeks damages from the government on the grounds that the act of the Minister of Foreign Affairs who refused to issue ordinary passports is illegal in light of Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the National Compensation Law. It is a document that clarifies that the claim will be added.

Plaintiff's 12th Preparatory Document points out that (1) the defendant has proceeded with the lawsuit without substantively responding to the matters requested by the plaintiff and the court, and (2) once again, the disposition of non-issue It alleges that it was done in deviance and abuse of the discretionary power granted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Regarding point (2), the defendant asked the plaintiff to examine the witnesses of the persons who were involved in the judgment of non-issuance of this case. argued that there is no relevance to the issue (“October 7, 2022 “October 7, 2022 Opinion on 'Outline of Plaintiff's Verification Plan'”). In this regard, the plaintiff points out that it is clear that the background and reasons for the immigration ban are circumstances that should be considered when issuing ordinary passports.

Exchange on two dates

At the beginning of the session, the defendant gave the following explanation regarding the issue of Judge Shigeru Haruna, whom I met as the presiding judge in this case, becoming director of the Litigation Bureau and assuming a position that could be called an agent of the defendant (government). did.

“Generally speaking, the legal profession operates in accordance with the objective discipline of law, and one of its characteristics is that it fulfills its responsibilities regardless of whether it is a judge, public prosecutor, or lawyer. Therefore, even if a judge who was in charge of a lawsuit in which the government is a party, etc. is transferred to the Director of the Litigation Bureau and becomes involved in the lawsuit, there will not immediately be a problem. However, in carrying out lawsuits in which the government is a party, etc., in order to avoid doubts about the fairness of the trial, the neutrality of duties, and the fair performance of the lawsuits, As a result, the director of the Litigation Bureau does not personally make decisions on lawsuits that he was previously in charge of as presiding judge. is not involved in

In addition, the defendant argued that the grounds supporting the above operation were the proviso of Article 13 of the Regulations for Handling Administrative Documents of the Ministry of Justice, and Judge Haruna was appointed Director of the Litigation Bureau.

He also said he was not involved in the case from the beginning .

According to the Ministry of Justice Administrative Document Handling Regulations, it is stipulated as follows.

(Matters requiring approval by the head of the department or higher and the person making the decision)

Article 13

Approved items and authorizers that require the approval of the head of the department or above are as specified in Appended Table 1. However, with regard to administrative documents for which a person other than the Minister is the authorizing person pursuant to the same table, this shall not preclude the decision by the higher-ranking person, if there are special circumstances.

Therefore, the plaintiff's attorney said, ``According to the rules, the 'higher-ranking person' makes the settlement only 'when there are special circumstances' and 'when there is no hindrance', so it is not a provision that is automatically applied. , It is necessary to make a judgment ``when there are special circumstances''.In addition, the chief cabinet secretary is not a ``high-ranking person'' of the director of the Litigation Bureau.Is this ``judgment'' really made on the day of the personnel change? When I asked the question, the defendant (country) only answered, "I was not involved."

After that, the above-mentioned "Expansion of Complaint," Plaintiff's Twelfth Brief, was formally filed.

The court instructed the defendant to make a counterargument to the "Written Petition for Extension of Action, "

I asked to clarify whether the fruit was considered .

The next date has been set for March 2, 2023 at 11:00 (Tokyo District Court No. 703 ).

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).