Trial over welfare expenses: Judgment canceling reduction of payment amount Hiroshima District Court

The Hiroshima District Court ruled that the reduction in the amount of welfare benefits was illegal and revoked the gradual reduction in the amount of welfare benefits from 2013, claiming that recipients in Hiroshima Prefecture were forced to live conditions that did not meet the minimum guaranteed by the Constitution.

The government lowered the amount of welfare payments by up to 2013% from 2015 to 10, reflecting the decline in prices at the time.

In response to this, the beneficiaries in Hiroshima Prefecture were "forced to live conditions that do not meet the minimum guaranteed by the Constitution," and demanded the cancellation of the reduction in the amount of subsidies made by the local government.

In a ruling on March 2, Hiroshima District Court Chief Judge Sumi Ohama stated, "When revising the standard of living assistance based on price fluctuations, it is necessary to make a judgment based on specialized technical considerations, but the government's judgment is illegal because it lacks rational relevance to objective figures such as statistics and inconsistency with specialized knowledge, and deviates from the scope of discretion." It accepted the appeal of the 52 plaintiffs and ordered six cities and towns, including the city of Hiroshima, to cancel the reduction in the amount of the payment.

According to the plaintiffs' lawyers, this is the 6nd judgment of the first instance in a similar case brought in 29 courts nationwide, and the 1th case in which the reduction has been canceled.

Plaintiff "Radiant mood"

Following the ruling, lawyers representing the plaintiffs and their attorneys held a press conference in Naka-ku, Hiroshima.

One of the plaintiffs, Kinue Nakamura (1), who lives in Asaminami-ku, Hiroshima City, said, "I was happy when I heard the words of the presiding judge and was convinced that I had won.

Kentaro Tsumura, a lawyer representing the beneficiaries, said, "I believe that the local government that is the defendant will appeal, but so far the claims of the beneficiaries have been passed in 12 courts nationwide, so I would like the national government to change its policy."