Photo/Illutration The Supreme Court in Tokyo’s Chiyoda Ward (Asahi Shimbun file photo)

The Supreme Court on March 26 overturned an appellate court ruling and ruled that a man whose same-sex partner was murdered was entitled to the same benefits granted to bereaved family members of crime victims.  

The Supreme Court's Third Petty Bench reversed the Nagoya High Court’s ruling that the man was not eligible for benefits, sending the case back to the high court.

The law on payment of benefits for crime victims stipulates that a “spouse” eligible for survivor’s benefits includes “a person who was in a de facto marriage-like situation” even if he or she did not register their marriage.

The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that this provision could include same-sex partners.

There are more than 200 statutes and regulations governing the coverage of benefits and other benefits with language similar to that in the law.

While this decision does not apply to all of them, it may affect the benefits and other benefits of a similar nature.

The plaintiff in the case is Yasuhide Uchiyama, 49, a resident of Nagoya.

A man whom Uchiyama had lived with as a partner for over 20 years was murdered in 2014.

Uchiyama applied to the Aichi Prefectural Public Safety Commission for benefits on the grounds that his relationship to the victim constituted “circumstances similar to a marriage,” but his application was denied.

Uchiyama filed a lawsuit against the prefecture in 2018, seeking to rescind the decision.

The Nagoya District Court dismissed the claim on the grounds that at the time there was no socially accepted notion that same-sex partners could be equated with opposite-sex marriages.

The Nagoya High Court also held that the provisions of the law could not be interpreted to include same-sex relationships.

On March 5, the Third Petty Bench heard the arguments seeking to overturn the judgment of the second trial court.

In the arguments, Uchiyama’s side said that same-sex couples are also eligible for the survivor’s benefits because “there is no difference between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples in terms of economic and emotional damages caused by criminal damage.”

On the other hand, the prefectural side argued that interpreting same-sex partners as eligible for the benefits, while the Civil Code does not recognize same-sex marriages, would substantially alter the legal status of the marriage system.

Related News