Old eugenic protection law suit Plaintiff's man seeking compensation

Old eugenics protection law suit Plaintiff's man seeking compensation The reason for the loss was June 10, 21:10

The issue of the old eugenics protection law, which caused about 25,000 people to undergo sterilization surgery. The Tokyo District Court dismissed the suit in a case in which a man in Tokyo who had been forced to undergo surgery sought compensation from the government. For what reason did the court reject the man's action?

“Violation of freedom of decision making” But the constitutional judgment

A series of lawsuits nationwide brought the first sentence in the Sendai District Court last year, and although no compensation was granted, it was determined that the old eugenic protection law violated the constitution. ..

That decision was noted in the second Tokyo District Court decision nationwide.

The 30-day ruling pointed out that the plaintiff's man had violated the compulsory sterilization procedure, the "freedom to decide whether or not to have his own child" protected by Article 13 of the Constitution.

However, it did not make a clear judgment as to whether the old eugenics protection law, which was the basis of the operation, violated the Constitution in the first place, and only showed that the country was liable for the damage as long as the operation was incorrect. It was.

The Sendai District Court has positioned the "right to decide whether or not to give birth to a child," also known as "reproductive rights," as a basic right guaranteed by the constitution, and admitted that the right was violated, but the Tokyo District Court said. We also did not make a clear judgment about the existence of the right to be "reproductive rights."

The hurdle of "disqualification period"

The Tokyo District Court acknowledged that the country was liable, but why did he dismiss the complaint?

The reason for this was the provision called "rejection period" in the old Civil Code before the revision.

It is a rule that compensation will not be sought after 20 years from the time when there was a tort.

Through the trials so far, the plaintiffs have not only been involved in human rights violations when they were forced to undergo sterilization surgery, but also in their subsequent lives due to the suffering of not having children with their wives and the fact that they had surgery. He argued that the distress period should not be applied, as psychological distress is a “life damage” that continues, as the situation can lead to discrimination.

However, the ruling on the 30th concluded that the period of disqualification had passed because it was the time of 1964 when sterilization was compulsory that the country had tort.

Although he acknowledged the "life damage" that the plaintiffs filed, he said that it was not different from the damage caused by surgery and that the starting point of the exclusion period cannot be delayed.

Furthermore, even if there is room to delay the starting point of the exclusion period, it is already up to 1996 when the old eugenics protection law was amended, and it was already excluded at the time when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit (2018). He indicated that the repulsion period had passed.

Neither acknowledged the responsibility of the post-surgery remedy for the country or the Diet

The Tokyo District Court also did not recognize the responsibility of the state or the Diet for post-operative relief.

The plaintiffs alleged that the state and parliament were neglecting to provide postoperative relief to those who had surgery.

However, in the judgment on 30th, regarding the responsibility of the country, "In Japan, the "eugenic idea" itself was not created by the country, and it was not always easy to exclude that idea." In light of the amendment of the law, we have decided that the country (= Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare) could not be said to have been obliged to take relief measures.

In addition, the National Assembly's responsibility was not acknowledged as "it cannot be said that there was a need or clarification of a law to compensate persons who have undergone sterilization surgery as of 1996 when the law was revised." It was

The impact on future trials

Trials over the old eugenics protection law have been filed in nine places across the country.

In both cases, including the Tokyo District Court this time, the “rejection period” was a high hurdle in all cases, and the appeal for compensation was rejected.

On the other hand, Professor Tsuyoshi Koyama of the Faculty of Law, Keio University, who is familiar with the Constitution, shows that different judges may have different judgments when interviewing NHK.

Attention will be paid to what kind of judgment will be shown in the judgments of various places in the future.