Japan’s new security legislation is big news in Japan, though has been given little coverage here in England apart from the fighting which took place in parliament on 19th September following its enactment. The following is a translation of a Nikkei article which surmises the current state of play quite well. The original article can be found here.

Translation: On Friday 19th September the Japanese upper house enacted a series of security measures which have been more hotly debated than any other law in recent years. The debate as to whether the law is unconstitutional will likely now be continued in the courts. The highest court (Supreme Court) is delegated authority by Article 81 of the constitution to decide on the constitutionality of laws, though any lawsuit must be brought before courts of first and second instance before being appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has a history of handing down judgments which do not meet expectations. In 1952 the then Police Auxiliary Force was to become the Self Defence Force (comment from translator: the rearmament of Japan by the United States in light of the Korean War was the background to this). The constitutionality of the transformation was brought before the Supreme Court which commented, “we cannot rule abstractly on the constitutionality of laws”, that is to say, it requires a substantive incident in order to do so.

As a result, it is likely the Supreme Court would throw out a lawsuit claiming psychological injury caused by the increased likelihood of war occasioned by the introduction of the new security legislation for being too ‘abstract’.

The type of case envisaged to fall within the Supreme Court’s definition of ‘substantive’ would be, for example, a compensation claim by the relatives of a self defence force worker who died in action sanctioned under the new collective self-defence measures introduced by the security legislation. Another example would be a claim by a self-defence force worker to deem unfair a job dismissal imposed after the worker refused to follow orders sanctioned under the new security legislation.

Even if these cases are not thrown out for being insufficiently substantive, the Supreme Court may still avoid ruling on their constitutionality because of the deference it must pay to cabinet and parliamentary decisions in ‘highly politicised matters’ unless they are clearly unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court avoided making a decision on the constitutionality of the American and Japanese mutual cooperation treaty in 1959 in a case known as the ‘Sunagawa incident’. The Supreme Court commented, “it is not in principle amenable to pass judgment on such a highly politicised matter”.

On this point, a former Supreme Court judge has commented, “this constitutional theory (in dealing with ‘highly politicised matters’) is based on the principle that politicians have acted in accordance with the will of the people”. In respect of the new security legislation he added, “difficulties will be encountered as to whether it can justifiably be applied given the Supreme Court cannot appraise whether due process has been followed in understanding the will of the people (for example, whether an election has been fought over it)”.

Before its enactment, individuals from all areas of the Japanese legal profession spoke out against the new legislation. About 300 lawyers and academics attended the Japanese Bar Association’s meeting at the end of August, at which a former Supreme Court Judge, a former Cabinet legislation bureau chief and a number of constitutional law academics were all in agreement the security legislation breaches Article 9 of the constitution (translator’s note: Article 9 proclaims Japan is a pacifist state).

On September 15th a group of 75 former judges submitted a demand to the chairman of the Upper House for careful consideration of the security legislation, proclaiming, “the positions we have held as guardians of the constitution will not allow us to close our eyes to what is now happening.”

法務翻訳された文だけを表示致します。

日隅一雄のブログ から：

「日本では、いまだに、取調べの可視化はされていないし、選挙運動の自由も極めて限定されている。男女賃金差別もはなはだしい。なぜ、形式的には民主主義国なのに、市民の人権が十分に保障されていないのだろうか。この閉鎖的な状況を突破する答のひとつとして、「個人通報制度」がある。」

日弁連の２月２５日午後６時から明治大学アカデミーホールで個人通報制度を実現するための集会のチラシから：

「個人通報制度の実現をマニフェストに掲げた新政権が誕生し、一年余りが過ぎました。私達は新政権に期待を寄せその実現を期待を求めてきましたが、未だ批准の運びとはなっていません…

国内の救済手段を尽くしても条約上の人権侵害の救済がなされない場合に，

被害者個人が，各条約の定める国連機関に救済措置を求めることができる制度を，

個人通報制度といいます。

個人通報制度は，自由権規約，女性差別撤廃条約，拷問等禁止条約等に設置されていますが，

日本は，これらのどの条約についても，これを日本に適用するための手続をとっておらず，

ＯＥＣＤ（経済協力開発機構）加盟の３０カ国，Ｇ８サミット参加国において，

唯一何らの個人通報制度も有しない国となっています。

日本政府や日本の裁判所は，これまで各人権条約の実現や裁判における適用に，

極めて消極的な態度をとり続けてきました。

そのため，各人権条約の日本国内での実施は，甚だ不十分な水準にとどまっています。

このような事態は，日本の外交政策の柱である価値の外交，人権外交にも背を向けるもので，

国連人権理事国の一員としてふさわしくない事態といえます。

日本国内の人権状況の改善のためには，国内人権機関の設置とともに，

個人通報制度を日本で実現することが極めて有効だと考えます。

また人権理事会をはじめ，各国連機関も，日本に対してこの個人通報制度の実現を強く求めています。」

以下の記事を選んで法務翻訳致しました。

プリンターの非純正インク、２審も「特許権侵害」　知財高裁

産経新聞 2月8日(火)18時49分配信

自社製プリンター対応の非純正インクカートリッジを販売することは特許権の侵害だとして、大手精密機器メーカー「キヤノン」（東京都大田区）がインク販売会社「エステー産業」（中央区）など６社に対し販売差し止めなどを求めた訴訟の控訴審判決で、知財高裁（塩月秀平裁判長）は８日、ほぼ全面的に販売差し止めを命じた１審東京地裁判決を支持、６社の控訴を棄却した。

１審は、非純正カートリッジが「ＣＡＮＯＮ対応製品」「キヤノン互換インクカートリッジ」などとうたって販売されていることから、「キヤノン製のプリンターに使われることを認識しながら販売している」として、特許権侵害を認めていた。

キヤノンは、一部の製品については１審で主張を撤回していた。

この記事のリンク

この記事の法務翻訳はこちらへ.

以下のブログ記事を法務翻訳致しました。法務翻訳サービスについてお問い合わせはこちらへどうぞ。

ロクラク機を使って録画したテレビ番組をインターネット経由で海外に転送するサービスが著作権侵害にあたるとして、ＮＨＫと民放５社などがサービスを提供する「日本デジタル家電」に対し差止めなどを求めた訴訟の上告審判決が最高裁であった。（最判平成23.1.20）

判決は、二審の知財高裁判決を覆し、一審判決と同じく著作権侵害を認め、再び審理を知財高裁に差し戻した。

判決内容は以下のとおりである。

放送番組等の複製物の取得することを可能にするサービスにおいて、サービスを提供する者（サービス提供者）が、その管理、支配下においてテレビ アンテナで受信した放送を複製の機能を有する機器（複製機器）に入力して、複製機器に録画の指示がされると放送番組等の複製が自動的に行われる場合には、 録画の指示をサービスの利用者がするものであっても、サービス提供者は複製の主体である。

すなわち、「複製の主体の判断にあたっては、複製の対象、方法、複製への関与の内容、程度等の諸要素を考慮して、誰が著作物の複製をしているといえるかを判断するのが相当である」ところ、

上記の場合、サービス提供者は、単に複製を容易にするための環境等を整備しているにとどまらず、その管理、支配下において放送を受信して複製機 器に対して情報を入力するという複製の実現における枢要な行為をしていることから、サービス提供者を複製の主体と認定し著作権侵害を認めた。

さらに、裁判長の補足意見でこのようなことが言われている。

「カラオケ法理」は、物理的、自然的には行為の主体といえない者について規範的な観点から行為の主体性を認めるものであって、行為に対する管 理、支配と利益の帰属という２つの要素を中心に総合的に判断するものとされているところ、同法理についてはその法的根拠が明らかでなく、要件が曖昧で適用 範囲が不明確であるなどとする批判があるようである。

しかし、著作権法２１条以下に規定された「複製」、「上演」、「展示」、「頒布」等の行為主体を判断するにあたっては、もちろん法律の文言の通常の意味からかけ離れた解釈は避けるべきではあるが、

「単に物理的、自然的に観察するだけでは足りるものではなく、社会的、経済的側面も含め総合的に観察すべきもの」であって、こんことは著作物の利用が社会的、経済的側面を持つ行為であることからすれば法的判断として当然のことである。

したがって、考慮されるべき要素も行為類型によって変わり得るものであり、行為に対する管理、支配と利益の帰属というニ要素を固定的なものと考えるべきではない。

控訴審判決でなされた判断は、こうした総合的視点を欠くものであって、著作権法の合理的解釈とはいえないとした。

以上の記事の英語の法務翻訳バージョンをご覧下さい。

この記事を英訳したいと思いました。作者は弁護士の鈴木英司先生。彼のﾌﾞﾛｸﾞ、 弁護士の良心、から記事を抜粋させて頂きました。

昨日の裁判がこれでした。

私の弁護した被告人は、コンビニでカップラーメン１個（販売価格１０５円）を盗んだ罪で起訴されました。

検察官は、「厳罰を科し、長期間矯正施設に収容」することが必要と論告して、懲役３年を求刑したのです。

私は、「被告人に必要なのは、厳罰ではなく、被告人の心を開かせる周囲の環境である」と弁論して（新６４期の修習生が５人も傍聴していたので、１期先輩の私としては、恥をかかないように、ちょっと緊張しました）、判決を待つことになりました。

これだけだと、なぜ？ですよね。

実は、「盗犯等ノ防止及処分ニ関スル法律」という法律があって、

第三条【常習累犯強窃盗】常習トシテ・・（窃盗を）犯シタル者ニシテ・・（過去１０年内に３回以上同様の窃盗した場合には）・・（三年以上）ノ有期懲役ニ処スということなのです。今や珍しいカタカナの法律であることからも分かるとおり、昭和５年に制定され、今まで何の改正等なく続いている罰則なのです。

つまり、私の被告人は、窃盗「常習」者と論告されたわけです。

ちなみに、裁判所法では、短期一年以上の重罪については、合議制（裁判官３人）で裁判することが原則になっています。しかし、この「盗犯等」については、例外として単独（一人の裁判官）で裁判できます。

また、常習犯人により重い処罰があるのは、常習賭博罪とこの常習累犯窃盗等の二つだけです。

いずれにしても、このような常習窃盗犯は、一つ一つの犯罪は軽くとも、その刑罰は重いのです。しかし、よく考えてみるとこのような法律がなくとも、窃盗 罪は最大１０年まで懲役刑を科すことができますし、窃盗に限らず懲りずに犯罪を繰り返した場合の刑を加重規定（累犯加重といいます）もありますから、わざ わざこのような法律上の加重規定が必要なのか、私としては大いに疑問に思っています。

裁判長は、優しそうな女性の方で、私の（被告人の生い立ちから、家族関係・人間関係・孤独感孤立感等々を聞いた）長々とした被告人質問にも耳を傾けてくれましたし、最後には、自ら一生懸命しかし優しく、被告人に対して諭してくれました。

どのような判決になるのでしょうか。

Unlike in England where employers must apply the same minimum wage (£5.93 for over 21s) regardless of whether their employees work in London or Manchester, in Japan different rates apply dependent on region as well as business sector.

For example, a factory worker in Tokyo must receive ¥821 per hour as a minimum whereas somebody doing a similar job in Yamagata praefecture must receive only ¥645 ph as a minimum. As an example of how minimum wages differ from sector to sector, a steelworker in Aichi would have to be paid ¥862ph as a minimum in comparison with a department store sales adviser working on the same street who would only have to be paid ¥785ph as a minimum.

Recently there has been a push to raise minimum wage rates to above the 800 Yen threshold regardless of region or sector. The government is proposing this under the assumption it will improve economic fortunes. In a recent tweet, corporate lawyer Nao Yoshizawa commented the following in relation to a new report of an investigation into the effect of a rise in the minimum wage for small-medium size enterprises.

“中小企業支援をやったからと言って賃金引き上げができるわけではない。海外の労働力との競争にさらされている視点からの分析が欠けている。日本だけがユートピアになれるわけがない.”

Translation: “Simply because SMEs are receiving financial support does not mean that wages can be increased. The Japanese labour force needs to be analysed against the background of competition with the labour force of other countries. It’s not as if only Japan has the right to be a utopia.”

I tend to agree. In the UK more needs to be done to help provide SMEs with a workforce at a price cheap enough to help them compete globally. Unfortunately, in the UK we are saddled with a workforce requiring high wages to service their expensive mortgages or rent, so it is very difficult for UK SMEs to compete with those in other countries. I guess we have no choice but to become one-man-bands for the time being.

Google can provide businesses with immediate access to global markets. To maximise their potential presence within their market, businesses can optimise their sites for specific keywords and phrases so they appear higher in the free search results section on Google, but they can also agree to pay a fee to Google (on a pay per click basis) which will ensure that their business’s ad appears as a “sponsored link” when a visitor to Google types in certain search terms or “keywords” – this pay per click service is known as ‘Google Adwords’.

Is the Adwords service capable of being abused? Take, for example, a businessman who has already built up a substantial amount of goodwill, to the extent that when a consumer thinks of a particular product, such as camping in France, she thinks of the name of the businessman’s company. Let’s assume the businessman has had the forethought to register a trade mark over his company name. Approaching the holiday season, the consumer will start her research of prices by first entering the businessman’s company name into Google. Results are generated, showing a couple of sponsored links, one of which is offering camping holidays in France, but is not the businessman’s company. This scenario is possible because Google has taken advantage of a message from the UK courts from a decision in 2008 (Mr Spicy v Yahoo!) holding that search engines can sell to third parties keywords that are similar or even identical to trade marked names, which can obviously result in consumers visiting and purchasing products or services from competitive websites.

A number of trademark owners (including Louis Vuitton) have since brought trademark infringement proceedings against Google for this very practice across a number of different states in the EU. In the Louis Vuitton case, the French courts gave Louis Vuitton (and others) the victory they sought. However, Google appealed, and the case was referred to the European Court of Justice (recently renamed the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU)). Trademark proprietors from other member states have also had their lawsuits against Google referred to the CJEU, the ultimate question being: “Are the sale of keywords in this manner an infringement of a trademark?”

Google held its breath at the end of March 2010 when the CJEU came to a decision in relation to the Louis Vuitton case. It was held that Google does not infringe trademarks by selling keyword related advert space to entities other than the trademark proprietor. Google was obviously delighted. The court did add, however, an advertiser could be guilty of trademark infringement if their ad suggested there is an economic link between itself and the trademark proprietor, which is likely to confuse the average internet user as to the origin of the goods or services being advertised.

The result is that Google has been given the go ahead to continue using its policy in the EU. However, advertisers need to tread very carefully when bidding on a competitor’s trademark to ensure that the link and the advertisement clearly identifies the goods or services being advertised are those of the advertiser.

Whilst this appears to be a victory for Google, a number of cases still remain in the CJEU’s pipeline and the CJEU has not indicated if it will use this judgement to dispense with the other outstanding references.

The most popular vehicle for a business in the UK is a private limited company. The main reason for its popularity is the fact that it limits the liability of the person or group of people interested in establishing the business. In theory this means that should the company business fail for some reason, only the assets owned by or tied to the business are at risk of being lost. For example, if Takashi, a homeowner, establishes a business under the ownership of a company using an unsecured loan in the name of the company, even if the business fails with the loan remaining unpaid, Takashi’s home is safe from the hands of the company’s creditors. The same would not be true if Takashi set up the business in his own name as opposed to in a company name.

There are some simple formalities to follow in order to create a company. There need only be one person involved and that person does not even have to be a UK resident! If Takashi, a Japanese national, wanted to form his own company in the UK he would need to follow the procedure for registering it with “Companies House”, the UK company registrar for a fee of only £15 if carried out online. The main requirements for a successful registration are as follows:

Choosing the company name

Takashi must choose a name which no other company has. He can check whether the name he wants has already been taken by carrying out a simple search at Companies House

Choosing a director

A UK company must have at least one director. The directors have the power to bind the company to agreements so must be chosen carefully. In our example, Takashi chooses himself.

Choosing shareholders

The shareholders are the legal owners of the company. The company must have at least one share and at least one person to hold that share. In our example if Takashi is the sole company shareholder and he owns the company’s only share, then he legally owns 100% of the company.

Choosing the company’s constitution

Just like a country, a company must have a constitution – this is called the “Articles of Association” (or “Articles”) A company must have Articles in order to be registered with Companies House. However, if Takashi does not want to take the time to create his own Articles, Companies House will provide his company a default set. Click here to see what this would look like. The Articles stipulates how the directors must run the company and also powers held by shareholders (UK company law specifies certain rules which all companies must follow in respect of the relationship between directors, shareholders and companies, but most of these rules can be varied in the Articles)

Choosing the company’s registered office

This address must be in the UK, but does not necessarily have to be an actual place of business for the company. For example, it can be Takashi’s solicitor’s office.

If you would like assistance with the formalities of establishing a company in the UK please contact me.