A court on May 16 said the Tokyo metropolitan government’s order to a restaurant chain to close early during the COVID-19 state of emergency was “illegal,” but the ruling rejected the company’s damages claim.

Presiding Judge Norihiro Matsuda of the Tokyo District Court said the order did not violate the Constitution, and that the metropolitan government could not be held liable for damages for issuing the order.

But he also said the order was “not particularly necessary” and “illegal.”

Although it claimed partial victory, Tokyo-based Global-Dining Inc. appealed the ruling, which is believed to be the first concerning government measures to prevent novel coronavirus infections.

Global-Dining had refused to comply with the Tokyo government’s requests to shorten the business hours of its restaurants after the state of emergency was issued in the capital in January 2021.

The metropolitan government on March 18, 2021, ordered the company to close early its 26 restaurants in the capital.

Global-Dining filed the lawsuit against the government, saying the order “violated the Constitution that guarantees freedom of business.”

The district court rejected that claim.

“It is difficult to say it was an unreasonable method, considering the revised special measures law related to COVID-19.”

But the court also cited the revised special measures law in criticizing the government’s action.

Under that law, such an order can only be issued “when it is recognized as particularly necessary.”

The Cabinet Secretariat had cited the risk of an infection cluster as a reason to consider issuing such an order, the court said.

The company’s restaurants, however, had already taken virus-preventive measures, which had considerably lowered the risk of an infection cluster, according to the ruling.

The metropolitan government had not grasped the true nature of the company’s anti-virus measures, and Tokyo also failed to provide a logical explanation for the order, the court said.

Therefore, the court said it could not recognize the order as particularly necessary and deemed it illegal.

The order was also rather ineffectual because it was issued just three days before the state of emergency was expected to be lifted, the court said.

But the court concluded the metropolitan government was not liable for damages.

It acknowledged that a metropolitan government panel had said the order was necessary and that the issuance of the order was unprecedented.

The court also cited a precedent: “When an illegal action is unforeseeable, the decision leading to such an action is not deemed negligence under the State Liability for Compensation Law.”

Tokyo officials took issue with the court’s description of the order.

“I recognize that the order was necessary and appropriate for infection-prevention measures,” Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike said in a statement released on May 16.

A metropolitan official at a news conference criticized the court for calling the order “unnecessary.”

“Even if (the targeted restaurants) implemented infection-prevention measures, it was impossible to reduce the infection risk to zero because customers could talk loudly.”

The official also said the company’s defiance may have also led to feelings of unfairness by other eateries, who could then decide to continue operating into the night.

The official also argued against the court’s statement that the order had a limited effect because it was effective for only four days.

“A state of emergency will become less effective if the court decides that (the company) did not need to comply with the order because there was not much time remaining,” the official said.

Representatives of Global-Dining said the ruling went “practically in our favor.”

Rintaro Kuramochi, a lawyer representing the company, said at a news conference that it was significant for the court to acknowledge that a local government has the responsibility to provide a reasonable reason for ordering shortened business hours.

“Local governments will have to be aware of (the ruling) from now on, and they will be significantly disciplined (if they fail to provide reasons for such orders),” he said.

Keigo Obayashi, a professor of constitutional law at Keio University, echoed that sentiment.

“Deciding on infection-prevention measures requires a comprehensive judgment based on the opinions of experts and others so that local governments are given broad discretion,” Obayashi said. “But the court went into depth, acknowledged (the order) was illegal and showed its stance of strictly checking the matter.

“In the future, local governments will have no choice but to be even more careful in deciding whether to issue an order to shorten business hours.”

(This article was compiled from reports by Kyota Tanaka, Taichi Kobayashi and Yuri Murakami.)