Isahaya Bay Reclamation Two conflicting obligations I tried to break through the trial ... September 13 19:02
In a trial over the reclamation project in Isahaya Bay, Nagasaki Prefecture, the Supreme Court ordered the trial to be repeated at the High Court on the 13th. Regarding this business, there were a ruling that ordered the country to open the gate and a decision to prohibit the opening of the gate, and the state ordered the opening in this trial to overcome this conflicting two obligations The final decision was virtually invalidated.
Do you want to open the gate? do not do? Twisted judicial judgment
Isahaya Bay is on the west side of Ariake Sea in Kyushu. Currently, there are approximately 670 hectares of farmland in the reclaimed land, and according to Nagasaki Prefecture, 35 agricultural corporations produce over 30 items such as onions and lettuce.
The concept of the reclamation project was raised in 1927 immediately after the war, but the purpose is to make changes such as rice production, field cultivation, and industrial land. The current business started in 1985 for disaster prevention and agriculture. In 1997, 3550 hectares, one third of the bay, were closed by a 7-kilometer tidal embankment.
Then, over the pros and cons of opening the gate, a fisherman who wanted to open the gate and a farmer who opposed the opening of the gate filed a trial against the country, and both won the case. The judiciary judgment was twisted.
The fishermen insisted that there was "fishery damage". I tried to open the gate. There was a year when the special bivalve “Tairagi” became unfished and the aquaculture paste was discolored.
In 2010, following the first trial, the Fukuoka High Court recognized the causal relationship between closing the embankment and damage to the fishing industry, and ordered the country to open the gate within three years. The ruling was finalized without appeal by the then Democratic Party administration, and the country was obliged to open the gate.
In response to this, the farmers filed a provisional disposition to ban the opening of the country, saying that if the gate is opened, the agriculture of the reclaimed land will be damaged. In 2013, the Nagasaki District Court granted the appeal and decided to ban the opening of the country.
As a result, the country has two conflicting duties: “must open” and “not open”.
The country will postpone the gate opening that was required within three years. Regardless of whether or not the gate was opened, a penalty was imposed in violation of either duty, and the state did not obey the obligation to open the gate and paid the penalty.
In order to overcome this situation, it was this case that asked the government to invalidate the 2010 final decision that the country was ordered to open.
The country has clarified its policy of not opening the gate. On the premise that the gate will not open, we presented a 10 billion yen fund proposal aimed at recovery of the fishing ground, but the settlement talks broke down.
In July of last year, the Fukuoka High Court issued a ruling that effectively invalidated the final judgment, saying that the fishery rights that the fishermen are seeking to open are already extinguished, and the fishermen appealed. .