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."

著者

大竹 昭裕

出版者

青森県立保健大学研究推進・知的財産センター研究開発科雑誌編集専門部会

雑誌

青森県立保健大学雑誌 (ISSN:13493272)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.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."

著者

大竹 昭裕

出版者

青森県立保健大学研究推進・知的財産センター研究開発科雑誌編集専門部会

雑誌

青森県立保健大学雑誌 (ISSN:13493272)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.10, no.2, pp.191-203, 2009-12

---

Reviewing Shunosuke Inada' s constitutional doctrine, which has been found at the peripheries of the constitutional doctrine of such scholars as Yatsuka Hozumi, Shinkichi Uesugi and Tatsukichi Minobe, but nevertheless has not been fully examined so far, has important implications and performs a fundamental task, that of filling in the gap in the research of the history of Japanese constitutional doctrine. This paper verifies Inada' s arguments regarding the House of Peers.At first, Inada advocated a review on the organizational structure of the House of Peers and proposed the establishment of a conference to be held jointly by the House of Peers and the House of Representatives as a method to achieve harmonization between both Houses, but thereafter criticized the House of Peers' adopting of a non-confidence resolution against the cabinet and the minister of state. At the same time he set out to assert his principles on constitutional amendments to achieve improvement of the organizational structure of the House of Peers. Furthermore, circumstances where constitutional amendments were rendered impossible by the appointment of a Regent led him to assert that the authority of the House of Peers should be clarified by the amendments to the Law of the Houses. The assertions that the Constitution should be amended for improvement of the organizational structure of the House of Peers and that the clarification of the authority of the House of Peers may be achieved by the mendments to the Law of the Houses are noteworthy in the history of constitutional doctrine.稲田周之助の憲法学説を検討することは、穂積八束・上杉慎吉・美濃部達吉らの憲法学説の周辺に分布しながらこれまで十分に究明されてこなかった学説を取り上げ、日本憲法学説史研究の間隙を埋める基礎作業を行う意味をもつ。本稿では、稲田の貴族院論の確認作業を行った。稲田は、当初、貴族院組織構成の見直しを主張し、両院調和の方法として両院合同会議の創設を提案していたが、その後、貴族院による内閣・国務大臣に対する不信任決議を批判すると同時に、貴族院組織構成改革のための憲法改正の主張を展開するようになる。さらに、摂政が置かれ憲法改正が不可能であるという状況の下で、議院法改正による貴族院権限の明確化を主張するに至った。貴族院組織構成改革のための憲法改正の主張や貴族院権限の明確化は議院法改正によってなし得るとの主張は、憲法学説史のうえで注目に値する。