Outline of structure of presentation that will follow, and more background

After hearing back from my attorney, I’m again somewhat unsure as to whether a retrial may be possible at some point or not, because the system and evidentiary standards are something I have to examine further. It may be that the term “decision” (or “judgment”, as per the official translation of Article 319 shown below), has a broader scope in this context. That is only one of many considerations. At any rate, since there is a five year period after the decision becomes final to file a suit for a retrial, I will take the time to more thoroughly research the scenario as well as other Supreme Court precedents before considering that option. In the meantime, the time honored civil society bulwark of publicity is to be that to which I make recourse.

Before getting into the substance of the case, I should clarify the formalistic aspects of the petitions filed as they relate to the formalistic aspects of the decision, and the rationale for the order in which the substance of the case will be presented.

In the translation of the Supreme Court decision provided in an earlier post (Cut to the chase), I only provided the gist of the decision (i.e., the reasons given for the decision). The reasons are preceded on the actual document by the statement of the decision, which consists of three short sentences, as follows.

1.    The present appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

2.    The petition for acceptance of final appeal is denied.

3.    The party filing the petition for final appeal and request for final appeal shall bear the respective court costs.

The structure of the decision is relevant to the presentation of the substance of the case because the substance is divided into two categories, according to the respective petitions, as defined by the following clauses from the Civil Procedure Code: 1) “Reasons for Final Appeal”, an 2) “Petition for Acceptance of Final Appeal”.

(Reasons for Final Appeal)

Article 312 (1)

As per “Article 318 (1) and (2)” described in post (Cut to the chase)

(Petition for Acceptance of Final Appeal)

As per “Article 318 (1)” described in post (Cut to the chase)

(Dismissal of Final Appeal with Prejudice on Merits, without Oral Argument)

Article 319 The final appellate court, when it finds that a final appeal is groundless based on the petition for final appeal, statement of reasons for final appeal, written answer or any other documents, may dismiss the final appeal with prejudice on the merits by a judgment, without oral argument.

The most direct approach is to examine the Supreme Court precedents, which the court deemed not to have been contradicted by the decision of the high court  (which incorporates portions of the decision by the district court), with respect to the relevant statutory laws as well as the Constitution. In order to consider the matter defined in Article 318 (2), “The judgment lacks reasons, or the reasons attached to the judgment are inconsistent” the substance of the decisions will have to be explicated, so that will be pursued secondarily, and in conjunction with the presentation of the material pertaining to the precedents where there is overlap.

Before proceeding into the labyrinth, I’ll just say that initially, the case concentrated on violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, and all of the Supreme Court precedents we cited related to two types of such violations. The precedents we cited were also cited directly or indirectly (use of parallel language) in the Tokyo High Court precedent of 2001 and the Osaka District Court decision of 2002.

It bears emphasizing that there the case I brought to the Supreme Court is the first case that pertains to violations relating to an administrative ‘Disposition with Application’. One of the Supreme Court precedents and the Tokyo High Court precedent also pertain to such violations, while the other two Supreme Court precedents pertain to violations related to an administrative ‘Adverse Disposition”, but there is an important point that requires elucidation here.

The Supreme Court precedent all dates from the 1960-70s, before the Administrative Procedure Act was put into effect in 1993. The Tokyo High Court precedent was the first high court trial related to the clauses of the Act pertaining to Dispositions with Application, while the Osaka District Court decision drew on the same Supreme Court precedents as the Tokyo High Court, and was the last such lawsuit filed against such violations because administrative agencies around the country improved their practices. That is evident with respect to our case in relation to the Review Standards from several other cities that we presented as evidence, for example.

Let me put that into perspective. The case I had to bring all the way to the Supreme Court was the first of its kind that had to be brought all the way to the Supreme Court since the 1970s. Because the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1993 was effective, there have been only two notable court cases, i.e., represented by the Tokyo High Court decision and the Osaka District Court decision, since the enactment of said Act, which served to reinforce the rulings from the 1960-70s and stabilize the legal scenario for administrative agencies across the country with respect to administrative procedure.

Furthermore, even though the present mayor of Kyoto had been the head of the Department of Education when the Osaka District Court ruling was handed down, the city of Kyoto did not improve its practices, and the state of affairs against which I filed claims were in some respects even worse than the state of affairs that had been described in the Osaka decision from approximately ten years earlier.