Waseda University Institute of Comparative Law

     At the 177th ordinary Diet session of 2011, legislation to amend parts of the Law on Civil Procedure and Civil Provisional Remedies (This Amendment shall be enforced as from a date to be separately designated by a Cabinet Order within a period not exceeding 1 year counting from the date of promulgation hereof.), the Law on Non-contentious Cases Procedures (This Law shall be enforced as from a date to be separately designated by a Cabinet Order within a period not exceeding 2 years counting from the date of promulgation hereof.), and the Law on Family Affairs Cases Procedures (This Act shall be effected as from the day when the Law on Non-contentious Cases Procedures will have come into force.) passed the Diet.

     First, the revision to parts of the Law on Civil Procedure and Civil Provisional Remedies is an amendment governing international jurisdiction intended to provide appropriate and immediate resolutions to civil conflicts arising from global economic activities. It is important that the amendment provides statutory grounds for international jurisdiction, which had been based on a logical progression from legal precedence. Specifically, the law stipulates that jurisdiction depends on the address of the defendant, on litigation concerning contractual liabilities, and on lawsuits involving consumer contracts and labor relations and agreements on jurisdiction etc., the law references the provisions governing domestic jurisdiction of land. It is worth noting that the so-called extraordinary circumstances theory is stipulated as “dismissal of claims under special circumstances” according to the Supreme Court Judgment of November 11, 1997, Supreme Court Reports (civil cases) vol. 51, no. 10, p. 4055, which set the precedent for determining international jurisdiction. A continuous focus on the use of the theory is required, though there is room for discussion about the discretionary use of the theory as in the so-called forum non convenience.

     Second, I will comment on the Law on Non-contentious Cases Procedures. The former law was enacted in 1989, and no comprehensive amendments had been made since that time. Therefore, in addition to the use of modern phrases and expressions, amendments were required in order to make it easy to use the procedures in non-contentious cases, protect the rights of parties in a modern society, and expand the procedural guarantees. The amendment stipulates the general rules governing the procedures for non-contentious cases; for instance, clarifies the position of the parties and attorneys, the procedures for hearings, litigations, and appeals; and builds systems to expand the procedural guarantees and improve the convenience of the systems for participation by all parties, inspection and copying of records, and the final settlement.

     Last, I will address the Law on Family Affairs Cases Procedures. No comprehensive amendments had been made to the former law, which was enacted in 1947. It is said that the former law had insufficient provisions governing general rules and procedural guarantees. Therefore, the amendment improves the provisions, e.g. on the jurisdiction, parties and attorneys, procedures for family-affairs cases and conciliation, and basic procedures for appeals, while expanding the provisions for procedural guarantees on the inspection and copying of records and the protection of children’s rights (hearing of statements).

     Attention must be paid to the use of the amendments because of the great significance for Japanese civil procedures.