February 22, 2013
In a lawsuit filed by shareholders of Tokyo Electric Power Company seeking to hold its executives responsible for the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the fifth hearing was held on February 22 at the Tokyo District Court.
The plaintiffs argue that TEPCO suffered great losses from the nuclear accident because successive board members had neglected to take safety measures, and demand that the executives, including former chairman Katsumata Tsunehisa, pay the company about 5.5 trillion yen in compensation.
In the hearing, the plaintiffs made a counterargument against the document the defendants had submitted to the court in December last year.
The executives in the document said that given Article 1 of the Atomic Energy Basic Act which states that its purpose is “to secure energy resources in the future and achieve … the promotion of industries by encouraging the research, development and utilization of nuclear energy,” it cannot say that the senior managers should have refrained from pushing for more nuclear energy
The plaintiffs in reply pointed out that Article 2 of the Act says, “The research, development and utilization of nuclear energy shall be limited to peaceful purposes, shall aim at ensuring safety.” Developments in the field of seismology have been significant since the law was passed in the 1950s, proving without doubt that Japan has a high frequency of earthquakes. Utilizing this scientific knowledge, the executives should have refrained from promoting nuclear power generation, they argued.
Meanwhile, the shareholders stressed that the very constitutionality of NPPs should be examined, as the severe accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant has infringed on the constitutional rights of the residents.
The plaintiffs argue that TEPCO suffered great losses from the nuclear accident because successive board members had neglected to take safety measures, and demand that the executives, including former chairman Katsumata Tsunehisa, pay the company about 5.5 trillion yen in compensation.
In the hearing, the plaintiffs made a counterargument against the document the defendants had submitted to the court in December last year.
The executives in the document said that given Article 1 of the Atomic Energy Basic Act which states that its purpose is “to secure energy resources in the future and achieve … the promotion of industries by encouraging the research, development and utilization of nuclear energy,” it cannot say that the senior managers should have refrained from pushing for more nuclear energy
The plaintiffs in reply pointed out that Article 2 of the Act says, “The research, development and utilization of nuclear energy shall be limited to peaceful purposes, shall aim at ensuring safety.” Developments in the field of seismology have been significant since the law was passed in the 1950s, proving without doubt that Japan has a high frequency of earthquakes. Utilizing this scientific knowledge, the executives should have refrained from promoting nuclear power generation, they argued.
Meanwhile, the shareholders stressed that the very constitutionality of NPPs should be examined, as the severe accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant has infringed on the constitutional rights of the residents.
