The 7th oral argument date was held at 15:00 on August 31, 2021 at the Tokyo District Court No. 703. This date is the place where the plaintiff's 4th brief, etc., which contains the objection to the defendant's brief (3), is officially submitted to the court.

1 About the 4th brief

The plaintiff's 4th preparatory document states that (1) there is no immigration ban by the Turkish government against Mr. Yasuda, which is considered to be the reason for refusal to issue general passports, and (2) the judgment of refusal to issue general passports is based on the Constitution and the Passport Act. Based on the regulations, it is a prerequisite to issue a passport in principle, and the defendant (country) interprets the situation where the issuance of a passport should be permitted unreasonably narrowly. Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act, which stipulates one of the reasons for refusal of issuance, is not intended to "maintain the international legal order" claimed by the defendant. Is incorrect from the viewpoint of international human rights law, ⑤ It is illegal to refuse the issuance of general passports to Mr. Yasuda even if the Turkish government presupposes the denial of entry, ⑥ In the case of refusal to issue general passports. , It claims that the fact that the necessary examination standards have not been set based on the Administrative Procedure Act is itself illegal in terms of procedure. (For details of the plaintiff's 4th brief, please see the "Proceedings" page.)

2 Exchanges on the 7th oral argument date

On the due date, the plaintiff's 4th brief was stated after the renewal procedure of the argument was carried out in response to the change of the presiding judge due to the transfer (the new presiding judge is Judge Haruna Shigeru). Evidence No. 38 has been submitted.

After that, the presiding judge urged the defendant (country) to supplement the allegations, etc., based on the consensus of the court body.

① About immigration prohibition measures

In this case, it is an important fact whether the plaintiff (Mr. Yasuda) was banned from entry by the Turkish government. The defendant has submitted a report allegedly prepared by a foreign ministry official based on hearings from the Turkish government and a document allegedly prepared by a local Turkish agency as evidence, but the grounds for immigration denial measures The plaintiffs have argued against (Turkish domestic law). Therefore, if you have a concrete assertion about the existence and grounds of the immigration ban, please submit it.

② About refusal to issue general passports

The defendant (country) alleges that the plaintiff's imposition of immigration denial is a reason for refusal to issue a general passport (Passport Act, Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1). However, the plaintiffs also argue that the country did not even issue limited passports (passports with limited destinations). In the process of amending the Passport Act, the Defendant deliberates in the Diet whether or not to issue a limited passport if it falls under the reason of Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 (cannot enter the country due to the regulations of the destination). Although it states that it has never been done, please submit any explanatory materials such as the deliberation process in the Diet and the purpose of the revised law.

Also, please insist on what kind of case the limited passport is issued.

In response to the court's indication, the defendant (country) replied that he would consider the above point (1), including the submission of new evidence, and stated that it would take about three months to submit the counterargument. rice field.

In response to the above point (1) from the court, the defendant (country) agent stated that the report submitted by the defendant as evidence of immigration bans was prepared based on the document prepared by Turkey. I made it clear. Defendant was found to have only submitted reports prepared by Defendant, despite the availability of such primary sources.

In response to the above, the next date was designated as 11:30 on December 9, 2021 (Tokyo District Court No. 703).

On June 22, 2021, the sixth oral argument date was held at the Tokyo District Court No. 703.

On this date, the brief (3) submitted by the defendant was stated. The brief (3) is on the previous date

Submitted in response to the court's request to answer the defendant's question (explanation) that the plaintiff asked the defendant.

is.

The court instructed the plaintiff to refute the brief (3). However, the brief (3) is the plaintiff.

It was not a complete answer to the clarification. In particular, under the Passport Act before the revision in 1989, from a specific country

Even if you are prohibited from entering the country, you cannot always refuse to issue a passport to a destination other than that country.

Defendant did not explicitly comment on the existence of the fact that it was.

The plaintiff's agent asked if he had any plans to argue as a defendant on the above points, but including this part, the next time

We will prepare a counterargument on the due date.

The next date will be held at Tokyo District Court No. 703 from 15:00 on August 31, 2021.

The 5th oral argument date was held at 10:30 on April 13, 2021 at the Tokyo District Court No. 703.

(1) Exchange before the deadline

Prior to this date, the defendant submitted the defendant's brief (2) on March 31st. In addition, the evidence submitted by the defendant (Exhibit Otsu No. 13-3, Exhibit Otsu No. 18-21) was investigated accordingly.

The content is a counterargument to the previous plaintiff's briefs (a total of three from the first brief to the third brief).

(1) As the basis of the Turkish law for immigration bans that Turkey is said to have imposed on Mr. Yasuda, the points that cannot be grounded are listed.

(2) Regarding the contradiction between the time of the deportation notice to Mr. Yasuda and the accompaniment of Mr. Yasuda on the day, he did not approve or argue, and did not show any grounds, and stated the contents of the Turkish report "There is no reason to question. "There is no particular doubt about reliability."

③ Ignoring the difference between Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act and the reasons for each of the other items (especially Item 7), and the difference between the passport system at the time of enactment of the Passport Act and the current passport system, the legislative purpose of No. 1 is "international interest". In the case of No. 1, the purpose is to maintain the international legal order, prevent crimes in the international community, maintain the relationship of trust in the international community, and maintain Japan's national interests. Adopting a framework that it is not illegal to refuse the issuance of a passport unless there are "special circumstances"

④ The claim on the content of the discretion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs that can refuse the issuance of passports ( the harmful effects of allowing the issuance of passports) is abstract, and it is judged that there are specific harmful effects and the issuance of passports to Mr. Yasuda. It is unclear how they specifically evaluated the freedom of overseas travel and the freedom of coverage that would be lost by not allowing the issuance of passports.

It was extremely problematic.

Therefore, the plaintiff submitted a written statement (3) on April 12, the day before this date.

The content, including the above points, asks you to answer the part where the defendant's allegation is not clear.

(2) Exchange on the due date

Defendant's briefs (2) and clarifications (3) were stated.

From the plaintiff's side, it is the defendant's country that knows best about the process leading up to Mr. Yasuda's return to Japan, and the facts should be clarified. It is a serious restriction, it is done without pre-established standards, and if the specific content of the judgment is not clarified even after the fact, it is decided by the national government to go abroad. He insisted that he would be able to restrict his travel.

With instructions from the presiding judge, the defendant will consider the answer to the statement of clarification (3), especially the process leading up to Mr. Yasuda's return to Japan by the next time.

The defendant stated that it may take some time to respond to the exchange in Turkey, and requested a preparation period of one and a half months (end of May), so the next date is 16:30 on June 22, 2021. From the minute, it will be held at the Tokyo District Court No. 703 court.

The argument has been updated following the change of judge.

On this date, the proceedings were conducted on the premise that the defendant's briefs (2) were inadequate, and the defendant decided to consider the answer to the plaintiff's clarification again.

It will be interesting to see how far the defendant will reveal the facts on the next date.

The 4th oral argument date was held at 13:30 on December 8th at the Tokyo District Court No. 703.

On this date, we submitted a brief to clarify the plaintiff's allegations (a total of three briefs from the first to the third briefs) and each evidence supporting the allegations.

The first brief mainly refers to the legislation of each G7 country, and is based on the fact that in each G7 country, travelers are prohibited from entering the country from a specific country as in Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act. It clarifies that there is no provision to allow the refusal of passport issuance, and highlights the irrationality of the reason for refusal to issue passports in Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act.

The second brief states that the Passport Act, Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 and the disposition for refusing to issue passports based on it are unconstitutional and invalid, contrary to Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Civil Liberties Covenant). It claims to be. Furthermore, in the brief, the government alleged the case of the European Court of Human Rights (“Stamose v. Bulgaria case”) in which the refusal to issue a passport was judged to be a violation of the International Covenant on Civil Rights, and the change in legislation in Bulgaria. It claims that there is no basis for the legislative purpose of the passport law called "international faith".

The third brief contains a counter-argument to the first brief submitted by the government. There is no concrete basis for the "international faith" that the government claims as the legislative purpose of Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act, and based on this basis, freedom of overseas travel is indispensable for the development of a person's free personality. It insists that it is not permissible to restrict the situation, and that Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act itself is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, regarding the passport issuance refusal disposition made to Mr. Yasuda, there is no fact that Mr. Yasuda was banned from entering the country in the first place, and Mr. Yasuda said, "Enter the country according to the regulations enforced at the destination. Journalism was unfairly disregarded for not being "a person who cannot be admitted" (Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act) and not issuing a passport to Mr. Yasuda, who has continued his coverage activities in conflict zones. It has been clarified that it is a disposition, and it is claimed that this passport issuance refusal disposition is illegal.

On the due date, the national government requested the submission of a counter-argument on the end of March next year (a little less than four months). In response to this, the next date will be held at the Tokyo District Court No. 703 court from 10:30 on April 13, 2021.

This deadline ended only with the procedure for submitting the briefs, but the conflict between the plaintiff and the state's allegations became clear, and the proceedings will begin in earnest in the future.

Prior to the date of the third oral argument, the defendant shared evidence with the plaintiff, such as the translation of the "Notice of Deportation," which is the basis for the existence of an immigration ban on Mr. Yasuda.

On this date, the plaintiff's litigation agent will request a more detailed translation because the translation submitted by the defendant is incomplete, and the procedure for deportation will be carried out regarding the fact that Mr. Yasuda has been banned from entering the country. In order to confirm that there is no contradiction between the alleged time taken and the time when Mr. Yasuda left Turkey by aircraft, he requested an explanation regarding the information of the aircraft on which Mr. Yasuda boarded. Defendant refused to respond to the clarification.

Under the direction of the court proceedings, the plaintiff will submit a counterargument to the defendant's first brief, and the next date was set at 13:30 (Court No. 703) on December 8, 2020.

The argument was updated following the change of judge.

On this date, the defendant's first brief was stated and the complaint was formally countered. This was followed by an interrogation of the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant.

* The contents of the defendant's first brief can be found on the proceedings document page.

https://www.call4.jp/file/pdf/202009/cf24f1eceaccf7e65a2604c75cba7e7f.pdf

The plaintiff's litigation agent has translated all of the defendant's "Notice of Deportation" (Turkish), which is evidence that there is a five-year immigration ban on Mr. Yasuda, and the immigration ban by Turkey. We have submitted a written evidence requesting translation of the "Turkish Foreigners and International Protection Law," which is the basis for the disposition.

The court instructed the defendant to submit a Japanese translation of the deportation notice as evidence and to resubmit a translation of the Turkish Foreigners and International Protection Act.

The plaintiff will refute the defendant's first brief after the defendant has responded to the above instructions.

The next due date was set at 10:45 am on September 17, 2020.

The first oral argument date was held on January 9, 2020.

The complaint and the answer were stated (read aloud in court), and the Evidence A (Exhibits A1-6) submitted by the plaintiff was investigated.

After that, the plaintiff's litigation agents, Mr. Teyong Han and Mr. Junpei Yasuda, made the following statements.

Teyong Han

1 June 22, 1983 En banc decision of the Supreme Court

Thirty-seven years ago, the Supreme Court provided an insight into personal dignity and democracy in the en banc. The Supreme Court said:

"Approximately each person has the opportunity to freely come into contact with and ingest various opinions, knowledge, and information, and that person forms and develops his or her own thoughts and personality as an individual, and is part of social life. It is indispensable for reflecting this, and it is also necessary for the basic principles of free transmission of ideas and information in a democratic society and ensuring exchanges to be truly effective. It's a place. "

It is indispensable for the formation and development of one's thought and personality, and the foundation of a democratic society, for an individual to know something, think about it, convey it to others, and interact with it.

And, in order to make this truly effective, it is most important to directly interact with people, see things directly, and experience them directly.

What enables this first-hand experience is freedom of movement and travel.

Refusing to issue a passport itself directly infringes on this freedom of movement and travel.

The question in this case is whether the Supreme Court's statement of personal dignity and the foundation of a democratic society will be undermined by outdated legislation and the administration that abuses it.

2 Outdated legislation

The plaintiff was refused to issue a passport because of Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act. Item 1 of the same paragraph stipulates that the issuance of passports can be refused for "persons who are not permitted to enter the country by the laws and regulations enforced at the destination". This provision has existed since the Passport Act was enacted about 70 years ago and has remained unchanged to this day.

However, when the Passport Act was enacted about 70 years ago, passports could only be used once in a specific country. The provision of item 1 of the same paragraph was originally established for the purpose of obtaining a visa for a country that cannot enter the country and preventing waste of going to the landing port. At the time of the enactment of the Passport Act, there was even a provision to warn that a visa is required for overseas travel.

However, the number of overseas travelers, which was less than 10,000 in five years at that time, has continued to increase since then. At present, the number of passports issued has increased more than 400 times that when the Passport Act was enacted, and the number of Japanese departures has reached more than 18.95 million annually.

The Passport Act has also undergone repeated revisions. In principle, current passports are not limited to one-time trips to specific countries. The current passport is valid for 10 years in principle, and it is a natural premise that you can travel abroad as many times as you like within the valid period.

The position of passports and the social conditions surrounding people have undergone dramatic changes. The provisions of Article 13, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Passport Act are outdated.

3 Administration that abuses outdated laws

Also, the issue in this case is whether the plaintiff has been banned from Turkey. Nevertheless, the Foreign Minister refused to issue the passport itself due to the circumstances of the country.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs was legally able to issue a complete passport or a passport excluding Turkey only. Nevertheless, by refusing to issue passports themselves, it made it impossible to travel to all countries and regions.

There are various reasons and circumstances for refusal to enter the country, without having to bring up an immigration ban on the grounds of the recent new coronavirus. Therefore, it should be rigorously examined why a refusal to enter a country is a reason for refusing to issue a passport itself.

However, the Foreign Minister has not given a reason why he cannot travel to all countries or regions. It does not set specific criteria for what to consider and in what cases the passport issuance itself can be refused.

The Passport Act itself, which can make it impossible to travel to more than 195 countries and territories because of a country's refusal to enter, is obsolete. And, using that provision, refusing to issue a passport itself without giving any reason or judgment criteria is nothing but an abuse of the law.

4 Significance of freedom of cross-border movement and travel in the "globalization era"

Today, transnational ties are strengthening in all aspects of politics, economy and society. It is a "globalization era" in which 30 million foreigners visit Japan every year and 19 million Japanese people go abroad every year.

The legality of the refusal to issue a passport in this case must be judged from the significance of individual dignity in today's "globalization era." In the "era of globalization," traveling and traveling across national borders, interacting directly with people, seeing things directly, and experiencing them directly are extremely important constitutionally.

The plaintiff's agent requests the court to fully respect and defend the freedom of cross-border movement and travel (Article 99 of the Constitution), and to hear and judge this case.

Junpei Yasuda

I was detained in Syria for 3 years and 4 months until October 2018. I am grateful to many people for their efforts to rescue them.

However, during detention and after returning to Japan, various misunderstandings of facts, hoaxes, and hate slander continue. Even now, anonymous messages and emails with the content "Die" are sent. To protect myself, I also try to hide my face when I go out.

Therefore, I planned an overseas trip and applied for a passport so that I could spend time with my family with peace of mind. However, my application was rejected by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Measures have been taken not to leave Japan.

It's been a year and four months since the liberation, but the stress of being constantly reminded of the fact of detention and unable to move forward by continuing to receive de facto "sanctions" from both the government and society. Is continuing.

Regarding the case filed this time, misunderstandings, hoaxes, and hate slander have been made. We seek factual and legal judgments so that we will not be overwhelmed by such emotional theories.

The court instructed the defendant to make a substantive counter-argument to the complaint, and the next date was set at 14:00 on May 14.