原発げんぱつ事故じこ 東電とうでん旧きゅう経営けいえい陣じんの責任せきにん認みとめず 1審しんと逆ぎゃくの判断はんだん 東京とうきょう高裁こうさい

In the lawsuit filed by shareholders of TEPCO seeking compensation from five former executives for the massive damages caused by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, the Tokyo High Court rejected the shareholders claim and did not recognize the former executives responsibility, in contrast to the first trials ruling that ordered over 13 trillion yen in compensation, stating that it cannot be said that there were circumstances in which a massive tsunami could have been predicted.

Tokyo Electric Power Company shareholders claim that the nuclear accident occurred due to insufficient safety measures, and are demanding that five former executives pay over 23 trillion yen to the company to cover costs such as compensation to victims, decommissioning, and decontamination.

The Tokyo District Court of first instance recognized the liability for damages of the former chairman and three others, ordering them to pay a total of 13.321 trillion yen in compensation, which is believed to be the highest amount ever awarded in a domestic trial. Both sides have appealed the decision.

The shareholders argued that countermeasures against a massive tsunami should have been taken based on the long-term assessment compiled by a government agency in 2002 regarding earthquake predictions. On the other hand, the former management claimed that the long-term assessment was unreliable, that a massive tsunami could not have been predicted, and that even if countermeasures had been taken, the accident could not have been prevented, thus denying responsibility.

In the ruling on the 6th, Chief Judge Toshikazu Kino of the Tokyo High Court stated, The long-term assessment is something that should be respected by nuclear power plant operators, but it cannot necessarily be said that there was a legal obligation to halt operations and implement tsunami countermeasures.

It cannot be said that there were circumstances that allowed for the prediction of a massive tsunami, the court pointed out, and in contrast to the first trials ruling, did not recognize the responsibility of the five former executives, dismissing the shareholders claim.

After the unjust ruling, the plaintiffs and their lawyers stood in front of the Tokyo High Court with stern expressions, holding up signs that read unjust ruling.

Could the massive tsunami have been predicted? Could countermeasures have been taken? These have become major points of contention. Regarding the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, the responsibility of TEPCO, its former management, and the government has been contested in various court cases. The two main points of dispute in these cases have been: whether it was possible to predict the occurrence of the massive tsunami that struck the nuclear plant in advance, and whether, if it had been foreseen, countermeasures could have been taken to prevent the accident.

Whether or not the massive tsunami could have been predicted hinges on the reliability of the long-term assessment of earthquakes and tsunamis published in 2002, nine years before the accident, by the governments Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion.

Tokyo Electric Power Company, based on the long-term assessment, up to 15 at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

It has been found that there was a calculation result indicating a 7-meter tsunami would come.

In the Supreme Court decision on the criminal trial in which the former management was forcibly indicted and all were acquitted in March of this year, regarding the reliability of the long-term evaluation, it was determined that it cannot be recognized as information that made them aware of the realistic possibility of a massive tsunami, and thus, the former management was not recognized as having been aware of the realistic possibility of a massive tsunami.

On the other hand, in the first-instance ruling of the civil lawsuit filed by the shareholders, the court pointed out that “if excessive reliability is demanded in the prediction of natural phenomena, countermeasures may become insufficient, potentially resulting in a situation where the safety of nuclear power plants cannot be ensured.” Regarding the “long-term evaluation,” the court recognized it as “knowledge with a certain degree of scientific reliability that has been appropriately authorized.”