The Supreme Court will hand down a judgment on the 17th in four class proceedings in which people who evacuated to various places due to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station sought compensation from the government and TEPCO.
The Supreme Court is expected to make a unified judgment on the responsibility of the country of the nuclear accident for the first time, and it may affect similar proceedings and the relief of victims all over the country.
The judgments are handed down in four proceedings of Fukushima, Gunma, Chiba, and Ehime among the class proceedings in which people who evacuated to various places after the nuclear accident sued the government and TEPCO, and TEPCO's liability has already been taken. It has been finalized and presents the Supreme Court's decision on national liability.
The focus is on the reliability of the "long-term evaluation" published by the National Earthquake Research Promotion Headquarters in 2002, nine years before the earthquake. It is being argued whether or not the accident could be prevented if the accident was taken.
Residents insisted that "the'long-term evaluation'was reliable, and the government had to instruct tsunami countermeasures, but neglected. If measures such as inundation were taken, the accident could be prevented."
On the other hand, the government insists that "the" long-term evaluation "is unreliable, and the scale of the estimated tsunami and the actual tsunami are different, and even if we instructed countermeasures, the accident could not be prevented."
The judgments of the two courts are divided, and while ▽ Fukushima, ▽ Chiba, and ▽ Ehime acknowledged the reliability of the "long-term evaluation" and said that the country was responsible, ▽ Gunma denied the reliability and the country was responsible. It was said that it was not.
This is the first time that the Supreme Court has made a unified judgment on the responsibility of the country for the nuclear accident, and if it is determined to be responsible, the government will bear a total of more than 1.4 billion yen in the amount of compensation that has already been decided, together with TEPCO. Will be.
Furthermore, the ruling is expected to affect similar proceedings filed in various parts of the country, and depending on the judgment, it may affect the relief of victims and the way nuclear power plants are regulated.
The judgment will be handed down at 2:30 pm.
Judgment so far
The issue is whether a huge tsunami could be predicted based on the "long-term evaluation" of the earthquake announced by the national agency, and even if it could be predicted, it is possible to have TEPCO take effective measures to avoid the accident. Was it?
Of the four cases in which the judgment was handed down, the proceedings of Fukushima and Ehime were recognized as the national responsibility in both the first and second trials.
▽ The Fukushima proceedings, also known as the "living proceedings," are the largest class proceedings in Japan, with more than 3,500 plaintiffs.
The Sendai High Court, which was the first decision of the second trial, said in September, "The" long-term evaluation "has an objective and rational basis, and if a prompt calculation is made based on this, the national government will also be a TEPCO. Was able to predict a large-scale tsunami. "
On top of that, he said, "I have to admit that the government was trying to avoid the estimation of the long-term evaluation itself because I was afraid of the heavy financial burden of TEPCO. It is illegal not to order measures." Following that, he acknowledged the responsibility of the country.
▽ The proceedings filed by more than 20 people who evacuated to Ehime Prefecture also acknowledged the responsibility of the government, saying that both the first and second trials "should have predicted the danger of tsunami based on long-term evaluation and took measures". increase.
On the other hand, Chiba and Gunma made different judgments in the 1st and 2nd trials.
▽ In a lawsuit by more than 40 people who evacuated to Chiba prefecture, the Chiba District Court of the first instance said, "We could foresee the arrival of the tsunami at the latest in 2006, but it is not recognized that the measures related to it prevented the accident." , Denied the responsibility of the country.
However, the Tokyo High Court of the second trial was able to recognize that if the tsunami was evaluated based on the "long-term evaluation," there was a risk of a tsunami that would greatly exceed the height of the site of the nuclear power plant. If so, the effects of the tsunami would have been mitigated, and the situation would not have resulted in the loss of all power sources. "
▽ In the proceedings filed by more than 90 people who evacuated to Gunma prefecture, the Maebashi District Court in the first trial acknowledged the responsibility of the government, but in the Tokyo High Court in the second trial, the presiding judge different from the proceedings in Chiba said, " It cannot be said that the occurrence of the tsunami could be predicted by the long-term evaluation, and even if the tsunami countermeasures were taken, the accident could not be avoided. "
33 class action proceedings for evacuees nationwide
There have been 33 class proceedings nationwide in which people who evacuated to various places due to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have sought compensation from the government and TEPCO. climb.
Of these, four cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, Fukushima, Gunma, Chiba, and Ehime, which were sentenced on the 17th, and 14 proceedings filed in 13 district courts and branches such as Tokyo, Yokohama, and Niigata. Is being heard in the High Court.
In addition, residents and others have appealed the two cases of Saitama and Fukushima, where the national responsibility was dismissed in the first instance on April and this month.
The remaining 13 cases are being heard in the district court or awaiting a judgment.
The court's judgment on the responsibility of the state is divided, and the 24 judgments handed down in the first and second trials so far have recognized the responsibility of the state in 12 cases and did not recognize it in 12 cases. I'm resisting.
The breakdown is as follows: the district court of the first instance acknowledged the responsibility of the state in 9 cases, did not admit it in 11 cases, and the high court of the second instance admitted the responsibility of the state in 3 cases, and did not admit it. There is one case.
Of the four proceedings issued by the high court, Fukushima and Ehime were both the first and second trials, and the national responsibility was recognized. In the proceedings of the case, the responsibility of the state was recognized in two trials.
Under these circumstances, the unified judgment of the Supreme Court may affect the proceedings in various regions where the proceedings are ongoing.
Four proceedings TEPCO's liability and compensation amount of over 1.4 billion yen confirmed
In the event of a nuclear accident, the Nuclear Damage Compensation Law stipulates that the electric power company will be liable for unlimited liability in principle regardless of negligence. The total amount of compensation exceeding 1.4 billion yen has already been confirmed.
The national examination committee established in response to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has set a standard for the amount of compensation called the "interim guideline", and TEPCO will make individual compensation to the target people based on this standard. However, in a series of trials, it was also disputed whether there was any damage that exceeded this standard.
Although the amount of compensation and the range of compensation are different, the amount of compensation exceeding the interim guideline is approved in consideration of the fact that the life before the accident had to be changed and "damage that lost the hometown". Was done.
The fixed amount is about 1 billion yen for the Fukushima proceedings for more than 3,500 people, about 120 million yen for the Maebashi proceedings for 90 people, about 270 million yen for the Chiba proceedings for 40 people, and 20 for the Ehime proceedings. It is about 46 million yen for too many people.
If the Supreme Court decides that the government is also liable for damages in the judgment, both TEPCO and the government will bear the total amount of compensation of more than 1.44 billion yen in all four cases.
Even now, more than 30,000 people are living in evacuation
According to Fukushima Prefecture and the Reconstruction Agency, the Great East Japan Earthquake and the nuclear accident have evacuated up to 164,865 people in Fukushima Prefecture alone, and even on the 12th of last month, 11 years after the accident, it was 30,231, which is 18%. People continue to live in evacuation.
Of these, 6549 are in Fukushima prefecture, 23,677 are outside the prefecture, and 5 are unknown.
Fukushima Prefecture has the largest number of evacuees in all 47 prefectures, of which Ibaraki Prefecture has the largest number at 2626, followed by Miyagi Prefecture at 2573, Tokyo at 2431, Saitama Prefecture at 2386, and Niigata Prefecture at 1958. Kanagawa prefecture has 1790 people, Chiba prefecture has 1423 people, Yamagata prefecture has 1262 people, Tochigi prefecture has 1151 people, and Hokkaido has 617 people.
So-called "voluntary evacuees" who evacuated from areas where evacuation orders have not been issued are not included in the number of evacuees in the prefecture, but are included in the number of evacuees outside the prefecture.
In addition, since evacuation is considered to be completed when housing such as temporary housing is provided free of charge, those who have rebuilt their housing or who have moved into disaster public housing are not included in the evacuees, but at homes such as relatives and acquaintances. Those who live are included in the evacuees as temporary housing.
The plaintiff who continues to evacuate
Keiko Fukaya (77), who stood in court on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Fukushima trial, which had more than 3,500 people, made a statement in an argument held at the Supreme Court in April. I lived in Tomioka Town, Fukushima Prefecture, 7 kilometers away.
After she evacuated to and from the prefecture 10 times, she has been living in Koriyama for three years.
She worked as a beautician for many years, and at the age of 59, she built a beauty salon on her premises to make it a place of relaxation in the area, but she was designated as a difficult-to-return area with severely restricted access and her home. The shop has become desolate.
Mr. Fukaya said, "I loved this house where I could live slowly. The house where I lived with my husband for decades after raising children is my life, so when I see the desolate appearance, what is my life and what I have done so far? I feel sad and tears spill every time. "
At this place, a judge visited the field investigation in May 2019 during the hearing process at the Sendai High Court of the second trial, and at this time, Mr. Fukaya knew that there were evacuees. I directly conveyed her thoughts to her.
Before the Supreme Court's decision, Mr. Fukaya visited a beauty salon in a difficult-to-return area last week for the first time in three years since the field survey, but the roof collapsed and he could not enter inside. ..
Mr. Fukaya said, "I couldn't enter because it was said that the radioactivity was particularly high, and it became like a mountain covered with bushes. My work and contact with neighbors were my purpose, and I made it with all my thoughts. It was a beauty salon, but the nuclear accident ruined everything that I had built up over 40 years while living in this town. It's the same as robbing me of everything. I was talking with tears.
On top of that, "It's not a matter of money. I don't really need money, so I want you to put it back. If you can get it back to what it was before the nuclear accident and get me back where I was, I'd like to come back here, but that's impossible. If there was no nuclear power plant, if there was no accident, I could have lived here, but because of the nuclear accident, I can no longer live here. "
"The last 11 years have been a waste of time for me, with repeated evacuation, rootless grass, and lost roads. I wanted to do more, but I couldn't do anything. Nothing has been decided. What should we do if no one returns the time of the last 11 years and the responsibility of the country is not recognized? That is why this trial never wins. I think we must definitely win for the many people who are still evacuating. "
Expert "The way of compensation and support will affect the future whereabouts"
Professor Rifumi Demoto of Osaka Public University, who is familiar with the issue of compensation for the nuclear accident, said, "It has been more than 11 years since the nuclear accident, and the responsibility of the government is judged for the first time. It is a judgment that has great significance in terms of how the support for the victims will progress in the future and how it will go. "
On top of that, regarding the impact if the national responsibility is recognized, "Until now, TEPCO basically had the primary responsibility, and the national government supported decommissioning and compensation within the scope of social responsibility. I have been involved, but if the responsibility of the country is recognized, I will face the victims as the same perpetrator as TEPCO, and there is an impact that the foundation of the policy will change from the ground up. I think it will be necessary to revise measures such as radically embarking on support for rebuilding people's lives. "
Professor Yokemoto said, "The Supreme Court's decision in March has confirmed that the compensation so far based on national guidelines is not sufficient. What conclusions will be drawn about the national responsibility in this judgment? However, I think it is indispensable to revise the guidelines. There are many things that have been revealed in the research and trials over the last 11 years, and the government should properly consider the ideal form of compensation. " He expressed the idea that the review of was unavoidable.