Impact
 | This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (July 2010) |
| SCOJ 2005 No. 1977 (平成17(受)1977) | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of Japan (First Petty Bench) |
| Full case name | Overseas Hibakusha Case |
| Decided | November 11, 2007 |
| Reported at | Minshu Vol. 61, No. 8 |
| Holding | |
| A government official erroneously interpreted Japanese laws in denying payment of healthcare benefits to survivors of the atomic bombings (Hibakusha) who resided outside Japan. The official's misinterpretation of the law and subsequent denial of benefits constituted negligence. | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice | Norio Wakui (涌井紀夫) |
| Associate Justice | Tatsuo Kainaka (甲斐中辰夫), Tokuji Izumi (泉徳治), Chiharu Saiguchi (才口千晴) |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | by Wakui, joined by Izumi and Saiguchi |
| Dissent | by Kainaka |
| Laws applied | |
| Article 1, para.1 of the Act on State Liability for Compensation; Article 2 and Article 3 of the Act on Medical Care for Atomic Bomb Survivors; Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for Atomic Bomb Survivors; and Article 1, Article 2, and Article 27 of the Act on Relief for Atomic Bomb Survivors. | |
The Overseas Hibakusha Case, [1] SCOJ 2005 No.1977, was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Japan. The Court found that the government's refusal to provide health-care benefits to hibakusha living abroad was illegal. The plaintiffs were 40 South Koreans who were exposed to radiation in the 1945 U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima. [2] It was the first time the Court declared a government order illegal and upheld a ruling mandating the payment of damages. [2]
The Court's decision hinged on an examination of laws relating to treatment of hibakusha, governmental agency directives that interpreted those laws, and an earlier decision of the Court related to hibakusha who were not Japanese citizens: [1]
"The purpose of this Act is, in light of the particular health conditions that survivors of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima City and Nagasaki City are still experiencing, to have the State provide health checkups and medical care for such atomic bomb survivors, with the aim of maintaining and promoting their health" (Article 1).
"The purpose of this Act is to pay special allowance and take other measures for survivors of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima City and Nagasaki City who were influenced by the injuring power of the atomic bombs and are still experiencing particular conditions, with the aim of promoting their welfare" (Article 1).
(i) The prefectural governor shall provide "atomic bomb survivors" with annual health checkups and necessary guidance based on such checkups; (ii) The Minister of Health and Welfare shall give "atomic bomb survivors," who were injured or sickened with diseases caused by the injuring power of the atomic bombs and are currently in need of medical care, recognition that their injury or diseases were caused by the injuring power of the atomic bombs, and shall provide them with necessary medical care at designated medical institutions or pay for their medical care costs instead; and (iii) The Minister of Health and Welfare shall pay medical care benefits for general injuries or diseases to "atomic bomb survivors" on certain conditions, for instance, that they received medical care for general injuries or diseases at medical institutions designated for atomic bomb survivors' general diseases.
Directive No. 402 was issued on the occasion of the partial revision to the Two Acts for Atomic Bomb Survivors by Act No. 86 of 1974 (see above)
Directive No. 402...provided that since the Act on Special Measures for Atomic Bomb Survivors shall apply only to "atomic bomb survivors" who have a place of residence or a current residence in Japan, if an "atomic bomb survivor" moves his/her place of residence outside the territory of Japan, the said Act shall not apply to such "atomic bomb survivor" and he/she shall forfeit the right to receive health management allowance, etc.
the Act on Relief for Atomic Bomb Survivors was enacted in a manner so as to integrate the Two Acts for Atomic Bomb Survivors
This notice abolished the rule of administrative treatment resulting in forfeiture of right under Directive No. 402.
The Hiroshima District Court rejected the suit in March 1999. [2] The Hiroshima High Court reversed the district court's ruling on January 19, 2005, and ordered the government to pay a total of ¥48 million in damages to the Plaintiffs. [2] The 40 plaintiffs worked as forced laborers at a machinery works run by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing. [4]
The Court's three main holdings were as follows: [1]
(1) "...Directive No. 402...without any explicit legal ground...deprives an atomic bomb survivor of a legal status...only by reason of his/her departure from Japan, and furthermore, it has a serious influence on atomic bomb survivors. Considering these, when preparing and issuing Directive No. 402, the appellant [the State] should have fully investigated and examined whether or not there was any legal ground for such construction or treatment...if the appellant did so, we can find that it would be sufficiently possible for the appellant to have recognized illegality of...Directive No. 402. Yet, the appellant did not try to clearly explain the very circumstances where Directive No. 402 was prepared and issued, and even by examining the whole evidence of this case, we still cannot find that the appellant fully investigated or considered this issue....We should find the appellant, by doing so, to have breached its basic official duty of construing statutes faithfully, or at least neglected such duty. Consequently, in accordance with Article 1, para.1 of the Act on State Liability for Compensation, the appellant is liable to compensate for damage that it caused to the plaintiff by preparing and issuing Directive No. 402, which is illegal, and continuing to take the administrative treatment resulting in forfeiture of right based on the directive.
(2) The plaintiffs, while being subject to unfair discrimination against atomic bomb survivors, harbored various feelings such as worries about their health and living, which were growing due to unavailability of proper medical treatment, and anger and resentment for being forced into such circumstances and left without receiving any relief because they were residing in South Korea. At that time, triggered by the judgment of A's Suit, [5] a sign of hope appeared for the plaintiffs to receive relief under the Two Acts for Atomic Bomb Survivors, but just then, Directive No. 402 was prepared and issued, and the administrative practice based on this directive was continued after that. This made the plaintiffs feel further stronger disappointment and anger, a sense of being discriminated, and dissatisfaction, and also feeling irritated by their aging, the plaintiffs at last had no choice but to file this suit.
(3) This case is an extraordinary one in which with regard to relief for atomic bomb survivors who suffered unprecedented serious damage caused by the atomic bombing, the appellant prepared and issued the directive based on an erroneous construction of the relevant statutes. In light of the seriousness, magnitude, and particular nature of the mental distress that the plaintiffs suffered before filing this suit, it is appropriate to grant each of them one million yen as compensation for their mental distress.
Justice Kainaka agreed with the Majority that: [1]
However, he opined that:
"government committee members, etc. consistently stated that [the first two Acts for Atomic Bomb Survivors] shall not apply to 'atomic bomb survivors' residing overseas, and this was also the intention of the legislator."
"Basically, in order to say that a construction of a statute based on certain legal grounds has lost such ground at a certain point of time, there must be a new development that would affect the construction, such as revision to the statute or the court's rulings showing a clearly opposite construction....no such development seems to have occurred, and therefore the said construction cannot be deemed to have lost its legal grounds."
"...where there is a conflict of views over how to construe a statute...and both views have reasonable grounds, if a public officer performs public duties while relying on either view that he/she considers justifiable, it is inappropriate to immediately find the public officer to have been negligent in doing so only because his/her performance of duties is later judged to be illegal."
"In general, an act cannot be deemed to be illegal under tort law unless it infringes any legally protected interest, and even if an act committed by the State or its official in charge has hurt a person's feelings...such person cannot immediately claim damages by alleging that his/her interest has been infringed thereby."
| | This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (July 2010) |
The Court had previously issued rulings on hibakusha cases. In a July 18, 2000, ruling, [6] the Court upheld a Fukuoka High Court ruling that a Nagasaki hibakusha qualified as a sufferer of radiation illness. She had been denied subsidized special medical treatment for radiation illness sufferers because she did not meet the Ministry of Health and Welfare's criterion that sufferers must have been within 2 kilometers of the hypocenter of a bombing. The Court issued its decision without hearing opening arguments. [7]
Hibakusha is a word of Japanese origin generally designating the people affected by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.
Takashi Nagai was a Japanese Catholic physician specializing in radiology, an author, and a survivor of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. His subsequent life of prayer and service earned him the affectionate title "saint of Urakami".
Wilk v. American Medical Association, 895 F.2d 352, was a federal antitrust suit brought against the American Medical Association (AMA) and 10 co-defendants by chiropractor Chester A. Wilk, DC, and four co-plaintiffs. It resulted in a ruling against the AMA.
Hiroshima Witness, also released as Voice of Hibakusha, is a documentary film featuring 100 interviews of people who survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, also known as hibakusha. Hiroshima Witness was produced in 1986 by the Hiroshima Peace Cultural Center and NHK, the public broadcasting company of Japan.
The Hiroshima Maidens are a group of 25 Japanese women who were school age girls when they were seriously disfigured as a result of the thermal flash of the fission bomb dropped on Hiroshima on the morning of August 6, 1945. They subsequently went on a highly publicized journey to get reconstructive surgery in the US in 1955.
Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State was an unsuccessful case brought before the District Court of Tokyo by a group of five survivors of the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who claimed the action was illegal under the laws of war and demanded reparations from the Japanese government on the ground that it waived the right for reparations from the U.S. government under the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco.
On 6 and 9 August 1945, the United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively. The bombings killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people, most of whom were civilians, and remain the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict. Japan surrendered to the Allies on 15 August, six days after the bombing of Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan and invasion of Japanese-occupied Manchuria. The Japanese government signed the instrument of surrender on 2 September, effectively ending the war.
The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) was a commission established in 1946 in accordance with a presidential directive from Harry S. Truman to the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council to conduct investigations of the late effects of radiation among the atomic-bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As it was erected purely for scientific research and study, not as a provider of medical care and also because it was heavily supported by the United States, the ABCC was generally mistrusted by most survivors and Japanese alike. It operated for nearly thirty years before its dissolution in 1975.
White Light/Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an HBO documentary film directed and produced by Steven Okazaki. It was released on August 6, 2007, on HBO, marking the 62nd anniversary of the first atomic bombing. The film features interviews with fourteen Japanese survivors and four Americans involved in the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Sumiteru Taniguchi was a survivor of the 1945 atomic bombing of Nagasaki, a prominent activist for a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, and chairman of the Nagasaki Council of A-Bomb Sufferers.
The Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) is a joint U.S.-Japan research organization responsible for studying the medical effects of radiation and associated diseases in humans for the welfare of the survivors and all humankind. The organization's scientific laboratories are located in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.
Tsutomu Yamaguchi was a Japanese marine engineer and a survivor of both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings during World War II. Although at least 70 people are known to have been affected by both bombings, he is the only person to have been officially recognized by the government of Japan as surviving both explosions.
Landeros v. Flood was a 1976 court case in the state of California involving child abuse and alleged medical malpractice.
No More Hiroshima is a 1984 National Film Board of Canada documentary about two survivors of the 1945 atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima, who are among a small group of Japanese who risk ostracism in their country by identifying themselves as hibakusha: survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The 26-minute documentary by Martin Duckworth follows the survivors on their mission to New York City as part of the Japanese peace movement at the second United Nations Special Session on Disarmament held in June, 1982. This 26 minute film received the Genie Award for Best Short Documentary at the 7th Genie Awards.
Barbara Leonard Reynolds, was an American author who became a Quaker, peace activist and educator.
Shuntaro Hida was a Japanese physician who was an eyewitness when the Little Boy atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima by the Enola Gay on 6 August 1945. He treated survivors as a medical doctor and wrote about the effects of radiation on the human body.
The Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations, often shortened to Nihon Hidankyō, is a group formed by hibakusha in 1956 with the goals of pressuring the Japanese government to improve support of the victims and lobbying governments for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Sunao Tsuboi was a Japanese anti-nuclear, anti-war activist, and teacher. He was a hibakusha, a survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and was the co-chair of Nihon Hidankyo, a Japan-wide organisation of atomic and hydrogen bomb sufferers. He was awarded the Kiyoshi Tanimoto peace prize in 2011.
Setsuko Thurlow, born Setsuko Nakamura, is a Japanese–Canadian nuclear disarmament campaigner and Hibakusha who survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. She is mostly known throughout the world for being a leading figure of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons (ICAN) and to have given the acceptance speech for its reception of the 2017 Nobel peace prize.
Tanaka Terumi is a Japanese anti-nuclear and anti-war activist and former professor. He is a hibakusha, a survivor of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, and is the secretary general of Nihon Hidankyo, a Japan-wide organisation of atomic and hydrogen bomb sufferers. He lives in Niiza, Saitama.