3. On Issue 3
A) The Incident was one in which the plaintiffs’ personal information was posted on the Internet. It included types of information that one least wishes to be disclosed to others, such as information on the plaintiffs’ faith and prior convictions. What is more, there was also data that took the form of a page noting relationships etc. with another Muslim individual under the heading “Suspicions”, and while these entries were confined to piecemeal information, it is difficult for a third party not to receive the impression that the plaintiffs are terrorists, supporters of such, or at least suspected by the police along those lines. Furthermore, once such information is leaked onto the Internet, due to their tendencies to diffuse and spread, there is the possibility that the information could extend to the entire world, and it is difficult to completely erase the information, and in reality, the Data had been downloaded onto more than 10,000 computers in more than 20 countries and regions as of 25 November 2010, less than one month since the Incident, as per (2) of the Undisputed Facts. In view of these points, it can only be said that the invasion of privacy and defamation that the Incident inflicted on the plaintiffs was of great magnitude.
Further, the plaintiffs have made testimonies such as the following: because of the leaked Data, their family may face discrimination, harm or disadvantages based on prejudice; their familial relations may be adversely affected; the mutual trust among Muslims was damaged; they were forced to become paranoid in everyday life and obsessed over people’s perceptions; it became difficult to work or secure permanent employment, or their businesses came to suffer; and that they no longer have a peace of mind in returning to their home countries, when considering the possibility of being suspected as a terrorist (1-17 of Exhibit A-34). The plaintiffs’ concerns are fully understandable in light of the above content and nature of the information contained in the Personal Data, and can be called characteristics of detriment from the invasion of privacy and defamation that the plaintiffs suffered.
B) On the other hand, it must also be considered that with the exception of economic damage to some of the plaintiffs in the form of loss of employment and revenue etc., the above detriment to the plaintiffs have not yet materialised at this point, and remain vague insecurities about matters that may or may not eventuate in the future. On this point, the plaintiffs argue to the effect that some of the plaintiffs have: suffered bankruptcy in their business because despite directing capital and efforts toward establishing a foreign branch of the company they manage, their visa was denied due to the foreign authorities receiving notice of this false information regarding investigations, and the entire plan fell through; seen a drastic decrease of revenue at the restaurant they manage; effectively been fired from the restaurant they worked at; and lost their employment at an embassy. However, such matters differ greatly depending on the individual circumstances of each plaintiff, and it should be said that it is not proper to take into consideration such individual matters in calculating the amount of reparations.
C) Incidentally, plaintiffs 1 and 4 were merely listed on others’ Résumé-like Pages as spouses, as found previously.
However, although a profile photo of plaintiff 1 has not been leaked, he was listed on the “Familial Relations and Acquaintances” section of plaintiff 2’s Résumé-like Pages as her husband, along with his name, date of birth, address and employer, and the “Information on Suspicions” section of plaintiff 2’s Identity and Suspicions Page noted that he holds a lecturer-like position at the mosque and is highly reputable as an Islamic lecturer, and continuously participates in workshops, special prayers and sermons etc. held at the mosque, and that they passionately engage in missionary activities as a couple, as found in the above 1(1)B(b) and (d). As details of his religious activities have been leaked, and is entered under the “Information on Suspicions” section, depending on the reading of the leaked information, plaintiff 1 could, along with plaintiff 2, be mistakenly regarded as a terrorist supporter, and it should be said that it is not proper to differentiate his level of emotional suffering in comparison to the other plaintiffs.
In contrast, as for plaintiff 4, she is merely listed as plaintiff 3’s wife in the “Familial Relationships and Acquaintances” section of plaintiff 3’s Résumé-like Pages, with her name, date of birth and address noted, but not her employment. Also, on plaintiff 3’s Identity and Suspicions Page (29 of Exhibit A-1), she only has her name and date of birth noted as his wife, under the section of “Family” within “Identity Matters”. There is no mention of plaintiff 4 in the “Information on Suspicions” section. As a result, in relation to plaintiff 4, although the extent of her emotional suffering caused by the disclosure of information depicting her spouse as if he were a terrorist cannot be dismissed, there exists a substantial difference in the quality and quantity of her leaked personal information in comparison with the other plaintiffs, and it must be said that her emotional suffering is significantly less than the others.
D) The defendant Tokyo metropolitan government has consistently declined to admit that the Data was information held by the Metropolitan Police Department, and this fact can be counted as one of the reasons why the plaintiffs were forced to go through the trouble of filing this lawsuit. Therefore, even on the premise that this in itself is not considered an independent illegality for the purposes of the State Compensation Act, it should be taken into account in calculating the reparations. The fact that revelations by the defendants on this point risks adverse effects on foreign relations is as held above in 2(3)B, but this does not justify burdening the plaintiffs in the previously stated ways.
(2) Considering these matters comprehensively, it is held that 5 million yen each for each of the plaintiffs with the exception of plaintiff 4, and 2 million yen for plaintiff 4, is fair compensation for the plaintiffs’ emotional suffering caused by the defendant Tokyo metropolitan government’s breach of its duty of care in information management regarding this case. Additionally, in light of the substance of this suit, advancement of their claims through legal representation was necessary, so 10% of the reparations for each plaintiff (namely, 500,000 for each of the plaintiffs except for plaintiff 4, and 200,000 for plaintiff 4) should be held to amount to legal costs as damages within the scope of legal causation from the defendant Tokyo metropolitan government’s above breach in their duty of care.
As this case is a claim for uniform reparations, this Court initially considered adopting the minimum amount corresponding to plaintiff 4’s emotional suffering for all the plaintiffs, but because this would be too low for the others, separated out plaintiff 4, and as for the remaining plaintiffs, disregarded individual matters as previously stated, and translated their common detriment into a monetary amount in order to calculate a uniform sum of reparations.
4. On Issue 4
Given the above circumstances, the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant Tokyo metropolitan government has a basis to the following limit and is thereby granted: for each plaintiff with the exception of plaintiff 4, a sum of 5.5 million yen in damages as well as money accruing therefrom at an annual interest rate of 5% during a period starting from 26 July 2011 up to a date when the payment will be completed; and for plaintiff 4, a sum of 2.2 million yen in damages as well as money accruing therefrom at an annual interest rate of 5% during a period starting from 26 July 2011 up to a date when the payment will be completed. The remainder of their claim against the defendant Tokyo metropolitan government, as well as their claim against defendant Japanese government, are dismissed for a lack of basis. Accordingly, judgment is rendered as described in the main text.
A declaration for the suspension of provisional execution will not be made, as it is not proper.