2023-05-09 10:04:00
A building-type charnel house built in a residential area of Osaka’s Yodogawa Ward has demanded the cancellation of the management license issued by the city of Osaka, arguing that it “may seriously damage the living environment.” At the trial, the Supreme Court found that the residents were entitled to fight in the trial and ordered the trial to be redone in the first instance.
Six years ago (2017), local residents and others opposed a six-story ossuary built by a religious corporation in Kadoma City in a residential area of Osaka’s Yodogawa Ward, demanding that the city’s management license be revoked. caused
The first trial dismissed the lawsuit, judging that the city’s regulations regarding the management license of the charnel house were “not intended to protect the individual interests of the residents” and judged that the residents were not qualified to fight in court.
On the other hand, Osaka City filed an appeal because the second trial recognized that it was qualified to fight in court.
In a ruling on the 9th, Chief Judge Michiharu Hayashi of the 3rd Petty Court of the Supreme Court said, “In principle, the management of charnel houses within 300 meters from schools and houses is prohibited as it may damage the living environment. Therefore, it can be considered that the interests of the people who live in this area are being protected so that they can live their daily lives peacefully.” ordered to be redone.
Until now, there have been many cases in which residents were ‘sent out at the door’ because they had no right to fight.
[Resident Agent “This is epoch-making”]
Lawyer Yasuo Toyonaga, who represents neighboring residents, said, “The issue of building-type charnels is occurring nationwide, but the Supreme Court’s groundbreaking ruling has widened the door for neighboring residents to dispute the illegality of the problem. I made a comment saying.
[Comment from the mayor of Osaka]
The mayor of Osaka City, Yokoyama, commented, “I would like to confirm the ruling and consult with a lawyer about future actions.”
[There is also an opinion that “at the entrance it is a few years”]
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the 9th was unanimous among the five judges, but former judge Michiharu Hayashi gave a supplementary opinion, while former scholar Katsuya Uga gave the majority opinion. commented in favor of the conclusion for different reasons.
Of these, Judge Uga showed the idea that the laws on cemeteries and burials themselves, not the provisions of Osaka City, protect the individual interests of local residents.
“In 2000, the Supreme Court formalized the wording of the law on cemeteries and burials and ruled that residents of the surrounding area were ineligible to contest the lawsuit. Each time a judgment is made, it is necessary to interpret it according to the provisions of the ordinance and rules.The unproductive situation of several years of disputes just for the judgment of the entrance to lawsuits will not be resolved.” I think it should be changed.
On the other hand, Judge Hayashi said, “The 2004 amendment to the Administrative Procedure Law added items to expand the scope of remedies for the rights and interests of the people, and there is more flexibility in the eligibility of people like the plaintiffs to contest the lawsuit. Judgment is required,” and there is no need to change the precedent.
On top of that, Judge Uga’s opinion that it is not desirable to spend several years making an entrance decision is “worthy of listening.” should be given due consideration,” he said.
1683655254
#Osaka #charnel #permission #cancellation #lawsuit #Supreme #Court #orders #trial #redo #NHK #Kansai #news