Isahaya Bay Reclamation Supreme Court decision on twist of judicial decision September 12 17:10

On the 13th, the Supreme Court will give a judgment regarding the trial that the country demands to invalidate the final judgment that ordered the opening of the drainage gate over the reclamation project in Isahaya Bay, Nagasaki Prefecture. It will be noticed what kind of judgment the Supreme Court will make in the midst of conflicting judgments about whether or not to open the gate and continuing the twist of judicial judgment.

In Isahaya Bay reclamation project, after the government closed the embankment in 1997, a decision was issued to order the gate opening in a trial raised by a fisherman, while another case raised by a farmer decided to ban opening the gate. And a judgment was issued.

While the judicial judgments conflicted, the government filed a court requesting that the final judgment that ordered the opening of the court be removed, and in July last year, the Fukuoka High Court in the second trial granted the national appeal and the final judgment was virtually invalid. And the fishermen were appealing.

In July, the Supreme Court's Second Small Court held an argument to hear both sides, and the fishermen demanded that the gate be opened in accordance with the final decision, while the State maintained the decision of the second trial and invalidated the final decision. Asked to do.

The judgment is scheduled to be delivered at 3:00 pm on the 13th, and attention will be paid to the judgment of the Supreme Court as the judicial judgment continues and the judgment of whether or not it should be opened continues.

What is Isahaya Bay reclamation project?

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. However, the purpose of the business is changing, such as rice cultivation, field cultivation, and industrial land.

In 1985, the current project for disaster prevention and agriculture began, and in 1997, 3550 hectares, one third of Isahaya Bay, were closed by a 7-kilometer tide embankment.

However, there was a year when the special bivalve “Tairagi” became unfished and the aquaculture crops were discolored.

For this reason, the country conducted a survey to open the drainage gate for about a month, but decided to proceed with the project without conducting a mid- to long-term gate survey without identifying the cause.

Unsatisfied fishermen have been tried and contested against the country.

Twist of judicial judgment

The reason why the judgment of the judiciary was twisted over the pros and cons of the opening of the gate was because the fishermen who wanted to open the gate and the farmers who opposed the opening of the gate filed trials against the respective countries and won the case.

Just before the embankment was closed in 1997, citizens and fishers who oppose the business have filed a number of trials seeking injunction against the country.

Of these, the fishermen requested the opening of the gate. In 2010, the Fukuoka High Court recognized the causal relationship between the closing of the levee and the damage to the fishing industry following the first trial, and the gate opened within three years. I ordered the country.

This decision was finalized without appeal by the then Democratic Party administration, and the country was obliged to open the gate.

In response to this, farmers who opposed the opening of the gate filed a temporary disposition to ban the opening of the gate against the country.

In 2013, the Nagasaki District Court granted a decision to ban the opening of the country, admitting the farmers' complaints such as "If the gate is opened, the agriculture of the reclaimed land will be damaged."

As a result, the country has two obligations that conflict with the obligation to “open” and the obligation not to “open”.

This is because the fishermen seeking to open the gates and the farmers who oppose the opening of the gates both won the national opponent.

The country postponed the opening that had been mandated within three years, due to conflicting obligations.

Regardless of whether or not the gate was opened, a fine was imposed in violation of either duty, and the country did not obey the duty to open the gate and paid the fine.

In order to overcome this situation, it was this case that asked the government to invalidate the final decision in 2010, when the government was ordered to open the gate.

In addition, the country clarified the policy not to open in 2017.

On the premise that the country would not open the gate, a proposal of a 10 billion yen fund aimed at recovery of the fishing grounds was presented, but the settlement talks broke down.

In July of last year, the Fukuoka High Court issued a ruling that effectively invalidates the final judgment, saying that the fishery rights that the fishermen are seeking to open are already extinguished.

The latest decision is ...

This decision will focus on whether the Supreme Court presents a unified judgment as a judiciary and how far it can express its opinions as the battle over the pros and cons of the opening of the gate continues.

First, the Supreme Court rejects the fishermen's appeal and the country wins.
As the country demanded, the final ruling that ordered the opening of the gate is effectively invalidated. The only judgment that ordered the opening in a series of trials will cease to be effective, and the judicial judgment will be unified by the judgment not allowing the opening. The country is no longer obliged to “open”, only the obligation “do not open”.

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court cancels the second trial and the fisherman wins, the final judgment ordered to open the gate will remain in effect. In this case, there will be no change in the situation in which there are conflicting judicial decisions regarding the pros and cons of opening the gate. However, the second court of the Supreme Court, which issued this ruling, decided in June that the fisherman would dismiss the appeal in another case that called for opening,
Did not allow the opening.

There is also the possibility of ordering the hearing again at the Fukuoka High Court in the second instance. Again, the situation remains that there are conflicting judicial decisions regarding the pros and cons of opening. However, it is noticed how far the Supreme Court has expressed its opinions regarding the pros and cons of opening the gate.

Expert "The cause of twist ..."

Professor Toshiaki Miyazawa of the Yokohama National University Graduate School, who specializes in civil law and is familiar with a series of issues, explains why the trial is confused: “The trial is a system that only determines whether each right is infringed. The Gulf issue requires that the local community agree and move forward by coordinating the interests and rights of each, and the courts are unable to make a detailed decision on what to do about the area. I think this is one of the causes of twist. "

Also, the Supreme Court's ruling is that, if any decision is made, the conflict will continue unless the politics moves and the interests are adjusted. It is the role of the politics to resolve these conflicts. I'd like the court to mention something about this. "