著者

大竹 昭裕

雑誌

青森県立保健大学雑誌 = Journal of Aomori University of Health and Welfare (ISSN:13493272)

巻号頁・発行日

no.11, pp.103-110, 2010-12

---

2004(平成16)年の行政事件訴訟法改正により、抗告訴訟の類型として新たに義務付けの訴え、差止めの訴えが規定されると同時に、仮の救済制度として、仮の義務付け、仮の差止めの制度が設けられた。本稿では、生活保護申請が却下されたことに対して生活保護の開始を仮に義務付けた事例を取り上げ、仮の義務付けの要件に関する裁判所の判断の検討を行った。この事例は、生活保護の分野で仮の義務付けが認められた最初のケースであり、貴重な先例となるものである。本稿では、裁判所の決定は立法趣旨に沿った妥当なものといえること、「償うことのできない損害を避けるための緊急の必要」が認められる範囲に関する判断は今後への指針となること、また、「本案について理由があるとみえる」か否かについてどの程度まで審理すべきかという問題が残されていること、などを述べた。With the amendment of the Administrative Case Litigation Act in 2004, motions for rulings and for injunctions were provided as new types of protest suit, and at the same time, systems for preliminary rulings and preliminary injunctions were established as systems to give preliminary relief. This paper takes as its subject a case in which a ruling for the commencement of public assistance was preliminarily handed down with regard to a rejection of an application for public assistance, and reviews the court's judgment concerning requirements for preliminary rulings. The case in this example was the first in which a preliminary ruling was approved in the field of public assistance and thus constitutes a significant precedent. The points raised in this paper include the following: that the court's decision can be said to be reasonable and in line with the legislative intent; that the judgment provides guidelines for future judgments concerning the circumstances under which courts will accept the existence of an "urgent need to avoid a loss that cannot be made good"; and that there still remains the issue as to what extent should a trial consider whether "the present case has merit."