On The Administrative Case Of Japanese Residents Near Rail Lines Suing The Minister Of Land, Infrastructure, Transport And Tourism

An administrative case was heard by Tokyo District Court of Japan in2013. In thiscase, a railway company raised the price of railway ticket, which had been approvedby the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. The plaintiffs werefive residents who lived near the railway. Unsatisfied with the high ticket price andthe improper pricing of tickets, they took the transportation minister into the court andrequired the court to cancel his admission for ticket price raise and so on. Beingadmitted as proper plaintiffs partly in this case, their claims are all rejected by TokyoDistrict Court. Unsatisfied with the decision, the plaintiffs appealed against theconviction. In February2014, Tokyo High Court rejected the appeal and upheld theoriginal verdict. Here in the case there are two focuses of dispute: Firstly, the fiveplaintiffs were proper plaintiffs or not; secondly, whether the admission made by thetransportation minister was legal. As to the first point, the interest of the fiveplaintiffs, which was protected by The Railway Business Act, was damaged owing tosuch an admission, and it can be treated as an example of particular interest protection,so the five residents were proper plaintiffs; and as to the second point, the authorbelieves that the transportation minister’s approval for railway corporation’s newagreement and also the admission for ticket price raise have violated article15andarticle16in the Railway Business Act, which were very unreasonable, so thejudgment made by the court remains open to question. In addition, the two railwaycompanies in this case may have abused superior status, and impaired the dealingparty through discriminatory prices, which is forbidden by the Antimonopoly Act. Ifthe plaintiffs had launched anti-monopoly suit against the two railway companies,they might have won the lawsuit.