Twenty-five years ago, in separate trials filed by fishermen and farmers regarding the drainage gates of the embankment that the country closed in the reclamation project in Isahaya Bay, Nagasaki Prefecture, the contradictory judgments of "opening" and "prohibiting opening" were finalized. I am.

As the judicial decision continues to be twisted, the decision of the newly filed trial will be handed down at the Fukuoka High Court on the 25th, seeking to invalidate the decision ordered by the government to open the gate.

In the Isahaya Bay reclamation project, after the government closed the embankment in 1997, a ruling ordering the opening of the gate was finalized in 2010 in a trial filed by a fisherman, while another trial filed by a farmer opened the gate. Decisions and judgments have been issued to ban.



As the judicial decision continues to be twisted, the country that cannot open the drainage gate has filed a new trial seeking to invalidate the final decision that ordered the opening of the drainage gate, and the decision will be handed down at the Fukuoka High Court on the 25th.



In this case, the country argued that forcing the opening of the gate was an abuse of rights, saying that the catches in the surrounding area were on the rise and that the situation changed over time, such as the decision to ban the opening of the gate was finalized.



In response, the fishermen argued that the claim emphasized the catch of some fish and shellfish.



The Fukuoka High Court urged a reconciliation through discussions, saying that it would be difficult to settle in the judiciary, but the government did not respond.



It will be watched whether the judicial decision will be unified in the direction of admitting the national side's claim and prohibiting the opening of the gate in the judgment on the 25th, or whether the fisherman's claim will be accepted and the effect of the opening order will be maintained.

Issues and claims of both sides

This trial is a trial filed by a fisherman in the past, and the government has requested that the final judgment that ordered the drainage gate of the Isahaya Bay embankment to be "opened" be invalidated.


In order for the finalized judgment to become ineffective, the court must admit that "new circumstances" have arisen after the trial of the trial at that time was over.



The respective claims of the state and the fishermen are as follows.



In the country,


the catch around Isahaya Bay started to increase from 2013.


▽ Measures for opening the gate became impossible due to strong local opposition.


▽ In addition to these, he insisted that the "public interest" due to the closing of the embankment became larger than the "fisher's interest" due to the opening of the gate over time.



He argued that forcing the gate to open based on a final judgment in the presence of these "new circumstances" is an "abuse of rights."



In addition, the government claimed that


the fishermen were paid more than 1.23 billion yen as a fine for not opening the gate, which not only compensated for the damage to the fishing industry but also provided excessive relief.



On the other hand, the number of fishermen


increased ▽ Shiba shrimp, and the decrease of other fish species has not stopped.


▽ The government is merely neglecting the obligation to open the gate with various excuses such as "cannot do countermeasure construction".


He argued that there was no new situation.



In addition, the fishermen complained that the government had paid fines, saying, "Infringement of the right to fish cannot be covered by damages."