Dear Overseas Plaintiffs and Supporters,
This is a translation of "No Nukes Newsletter: July 23, 2016," which is sent to all the plaintiffs
living in Japan.
＼┃―――――――――――――――――┃／1. We report to you here on the latest situation in the lawsuit. (By Nobuko Terada, LegalTeam Secretariat)
The verdict in the first trial in the lawsuit was handed down at 4 p.m. on July 13, 2016, inCourtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court. The plaintiffs’ claims were rejected (rejection ofthe creditors’ right of subrogation to demand compensation). Looking at the reasons for theverdict, it is clear that the court did not allow sufficient time for deliberation of the issues, andas stated in the recusal against the judges, the legal team for the plaintiffs was not evenallowed to complete its claims. In order to demand a further judgment in an appeal trial, thelegal team is now preparing documents for the appeal. (The claim for recusal of the judges
was rejected on April 21, but the legal team made an immediate appeal to the Tokyo High
Court on May 2. Although this recusal is still pending, it does not cause the trail procedure tobe suspended and therefore the verdict was handed down on July 23.)
We very much hope that we can count on the continued cooperation of all the plaintiffs. We
intend to thoroughly and doggedly pursue and expose the irrationality of the concentration ofliability under the Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CND) Act and struggle for recognitionof the liability for compensation by the nuclear reactor suppliers!
＼┃―――――――――――――――――┃／2. Summary of the July 23 verdict (By Legal Team)
I. Regarding unconstitutionality of the concentration of liability under the CND Act1) Regarding No Nukes Rights
The no nukes rights claimed by the plaintiffs is, in effect, understood as specific rights under
personal rights and environmental rights guaranteed by the constitution that might be pertinent
in the case of a nuclear accident.
Certainly, an injunction may be recognized in the case that there is some specific danger, but
over and above that, in the case that a nuclear accident has occurred, it cannot be understoodthat the immediate right has arisen, as claimed by the plaintiffs, to make a full and direct claim
for damage compensation against the nuclear reactor suppliers with reference to personal
rights or environmental rights.
Regarding the claim of moral hazard, nothing more than policy arguments are madeconcerning the rights and wrongs of the Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CND) Act.
It is not recognized that the concentration of liability violates no nukes rights
and theconcentration of liability is therefore not unconstitutional.
2) Regarding Property Rights

To what extent and against whom people who have suffered some damage are able to exercise
their right of claim to receive damage compensation, provided there are no specialcircumstances that make it impossible to say that the restitution of the damage is rational, is,
as a rule, within the scope of the discretion of the law.
According to the CND Act, regulations to completely compensate for damage are fully
provided for.
Compensation is currently being paid for damages and it is expected that support by thesupport agency will continue.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the concentration of liability under the CND Act is notrational regarding the restitution of damage, and it is within the scope of the law. The
concentration of liability does not violate property rights.
3) Regarding Equality Rights
As the fact that the concentration of liability cannot be judged to be irrational is as statedabove, there is no discrimination based on an irrational reason.
4) Regarding right to receive a trial
Even if the claims of people cannot be recognized because they are deemed not to hold theright to receive a trial as a result of the application of a law, provided that law is not invalid
due to unconstitutionality, it cannot be said that that fact of itself violates the right to receive atrial.
II. Concerning the applicability of abuse of rights with regard to exemption of liability due tothe concentration of liability under the CND Act as claimed by the plaintiffs
According to the CND Act, the defendants bear no responsibility (for this), and since thedefendants are exercising no right, due to the fact that the plaintiffs cannot exercise the right toclaim damage compensation from the defendants, the claim itself is irrelevant.
III. The applicability of nuclear damages – omitted.
IV. The plaintiffs’ claim is therefore rejected due to the above reasons.
V. The exercise of the creditors’ right of subrogation to demand compensation
The Support Organization is continuing to supply funding to TEPCO.
The financial statements consistently show positive assets.
The profits-and-losses sheet also shows profits.
Therefore, there is no sign that TEPCO will fall into a situation of excess debt, and thus
TEPCO will not fall into a position where it is bereft of funds.
Thus, the eligibility of the plaintiffs (necessity for full repayment of debts) is not recognized,
and is rejected.
＼┃―――――――――――――――――┃／3. Let’s prepare! (By Akihiro Shima / Joint Representative of the Legal Team)The verdict in the Lawsuit against the Nuclear Suppliers handed down on July 13 at the Tokyo
District Court was effectively completed in 10 seconds.
In spite of the fact that at the 4th oral proceedings we stated the schedule for thefurther
presentation of evidence and clearly stated our response to the defendants’ rebuttals, we werenot given the opportunity to make further presentations in court due to the sudden declarationof the conclusion of the proceedings by the judges. We were not therefore anticipating that
there would be a proper and serious verdict forthcoming.
Even so, the Courtroom 103 was packed by people who would not allow a simple
implementation of “pre-established harmony” (affirmation of the status quo regarding nuclearissues)… just to hear the 10-second empty declaration of the chief judge.
Everyone knows the meaning of this trial, the importance of packing out the courtroom, andthe necessity to encourage the legal team.
This was the only possible forum for questioning before the judiciary the irrationality of theconcentration of liability that allows the nuclear reactor suppliers to be promised that they will
not have to bear any liability whatsoever, and that they would be assured of massive profits.
It is quite obvious that the fullest possible arguments that will stand up to historicalinvestigation be put forth.
However, we refuse to be discouraged by being confronted with an extremely sloppy verdict
based on immature legal arguments that do not even include a proper understanding of thedistinction between personal and environmental rights.
This is not the end.
Let’s now begin preparations that will force the defendants and the courts into a position fromwhich there is no escape.
With everyone who fills the courtrooms with their passionate feelings and with all our friendsaround the world, we will continue to struggle for No Nukes Rights!
＼┃―――――――――――――――――┃／
4. Regarding the plaintiffs’ organization in the Lawsuit against the Nuclear Reactor Suppliers
At the meeting after the judgment, Japanese plaintiffs brought up the issue of the need for aproper organization of the plaintiffs for the lawsuit in order to support our legal team, and adraft charter has been drawn up to stipulate the regulations of the organization. The main
points of the charter are:i)Members are the plaintiffs who have concluded a contract thatcommissions the legal team as their representatives in the lawsuit.
ii)

Up to three of the joint representatives of the facilitators group and one

accountant facilitator will act as officers of the plaintiffs’ organization.
iii)

The income of the organization will be from donations given by plaintiffs orby supporters.

iv)

The highest decision-making body of the plaintiffs’ organization will be theannual general meeting, and extraordinary general meetings that are to be held whennecessary.
v)

A “facilitators group” will be appointed to manage the organization. This

group will consist of officers and facilitators. Facilitators are plaintiffs who have been
freely involved with planning, management and concrete duties of the lawsuit and are
not limited to specific persons. (This basically approves the current form of theFacilitators Group that has been the core of the legal team support activities for sometime.)
We will give you more details about the plaintiffs’ organization charter when the charter isfinalized.
-----------------------------------Dear plaintiffs living overseas,Thank you very much for your continued support and for sending us your power of attorney
letters!
If you have not yet sent us your power of attorney letters (not in digital form, but using thepaper form) and wish to continue to support the efforts of this lawsuit, we would be very
happy indeed if you would fill out and sign *two* power of attorney letters, one for the High
Court appeal and one for the Supreme Court appeal, and post them to us at the address given
below as soon as possible (if you have not already done so). It is necessary to have thesepower of attorney letters posted to us because the court will only accept the *original* signed
letter, not faxed, copied or scanned letters. We ask for your cooperation on this and thank you
deeply for bearing with us during this complex court procedure.
The power of attorney form can be downloaded from the following page:
http://nonukesrights.holy.jp/pa.html
The top page for the website of the No Nukes Rights! Lawsuit against the Nuclear Reactor
Suppliers is:
http://nonukesrights.holy.jp/

Our email address for inquiries from overseas
is: information_overseas@nonukesrights.holy.jp
The postal address to send power of attorney letters and other communications is:
Overseas Plaintiffs Manager, Facilitators GroupC/O R-Rights Law Office,3rd Floor, 3-9-10 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo,

JAPAN 104-0045
Please feel free to contact us at anytime if you have comments on the lawsuit or wish to ask
questions. We look forward very much to hearing from you!