Article 11Agreement on Jurisdiction
第十一条(管轄の合意)
The parties may determine the court of jurisdiction by agreement, but only in the first instance.
当事者は、第一審に限り、合意により管轄裁判所を定めることができる。
An agreement as referred to in the preceding paragraph is not valid unless it is made regarding actions that are based on a specific legal relationship, and executed by means of a paper document.
前項の合意は、一定の法律関係に基づく訴えに関し、かつ、書面でしなければ、その効力を生じない。
If electronic or magnetic records in which the content of an agreement as referred to in paragraph (1) is recorded are used to execute that agreement, the agreement is deemed to have been executed by means of a paper document and the provisions of the preceding paragraph apply.
Article 12Jurisdiction by Appearance
第十二条(応訴管轄)
If a defendant presents an oral argument on the merits of the case or enters a statement in preparatory proceedings before the court of first instance without entering a defense of lack of jurisdiction, that court has jurisdiction.
被告が第一審裁判所において管轄違いの抗弁を提出しないで本案について弁論をし、又は弁論準備手続において申述をしたときは、その裁判所は、管轄権を有する。
Article 13Exclusion from Application Due to Exclusive Jurisdiction
第十三条(専属管轄の場合の適用除外等)
The provisions of Article 4, paragraph (1); Article 5; Article 6, paragraph (2); Article 6-2; Article 7; and the preceding two Articles do not apply if exclusive jurisdiction over an action is provided for by law or regulation.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, if a court provided for in the first part of either of the items of Article 6, paragraph (1) is to have jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Article 7 or the preceding two Articles over a prescribed IP action, that court has jurisdiction over the action, pursuant to the provisions of Article 7 or the preceding two Articles.
The court may conduct an examination of evidence sua sponte with regard to matters that concern jurisdiction.
裁判所は、管轄に関する事項について、職権で証拠調べをすることができる。
Whether a court has jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the time at which an action is filed.
裁判所の管轄は、訴えの提起の時を標準として定める。
Article 16Handling of Lack of Jurisdiction
第十六条(管轄違いの場合の取扱い)
If the court finds that the whole or part of litigation is not subject to its jurisdiction, it transfers the litigation sua sponte to the court of jurisdiction.
裁判所は、訴訟の全部又は一部がその管轄に属しないと認めるときは、申立てにより又は職権で、これを管轄裁判所に移送する。
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, even if the litigation is subject to the jurisdiction of a summary court that is under its territorial jurisdiction, the district court, upon petition or sua sponte, may conduct the trial and reach a judicial decision itself for the whole or part of the litigation, if it finds this to be appropriate; provided, however, that this does not apply if the litigation is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of such a summary court (excluding exclusive jurisdiction determined by an agreement between the parties pursuant to the provisions of Article 11).
Article 17Transfer to Avoid Delay
第十七条(遅滞を避ける等のための移送)
Even if the litigation is subject to its jurisdiction, the court of first instance, upon petition or sua sponte, may transfer the whole or part of the litigation to another court of jurisdiction if it finds this to be necessary in order to avoid a substantial delay in litigation or to ensure equity between the parties, in consideration of the domicile of each party and witnesses to be examined, the location of any object to be inspected that is to be used, and any other circumstances.
第一審裁判所は、訴訟がその管轄に属する場合においても、当事者及び尋問を受けるべき証人の住所、使用すべき検証物の所在地その他の事情を考慮して、訴訟の著しい遅滞を避け、又は当事者間の衡平を図るため必要があると認めるときは、申立てにより又は職権で、訴訟の全部又は一部を他の管轄裁判所に移送することができる。
Article 18Discretionary Transfer by the Summary Court
第十八条(簡易裁判所の裁量移送)
Even if the litigation is subject to its jurisdiction, a summary court, upon petition or sua sponte, may transfer the whole or part of litigation to the district court of jurisdiction in that locality, if it finds this to be appropriate.
簡易裁判所は、訴訟がその管轄に属する場合においても、相当と認めるときは、申立てにより又は職権で、訴訟の全部又は一部をその所在地を管轄する地方裁判所に移送することができる。
第十九条(必要的移送)
If a party petitions and the adverse party consents, the court of first instance must transfer the whole or part of litigation to the district court or summary court under that petition, even if the litigation is subject to its jurisdiction; provided, however, that this does not apply if the transfer would substantially delay litigation proceedings or if the petition is filed after the defendant has presented an oral argument on the merits of the case or entered a statement in preparatory proceedings, and if the petition is not for a transfer from the summary court to the district court of jurisdiction in that locality.
第一審裁判所は、訴訟がその管轄に属する場合においても、当事者の申立て及び相手方の同意があるときは、訴訟の全部又は一部を申立てに係る地方裁判所又は簡易裁判所に移送しなければならない。ただし、移送により著しく訴訟手続を遅滞させることとなるとき、又はその申立てが、簡易裁判所からその所在地を管轄する地方裁判所への移送の申立て以外のものであって、被告が本案について弁論をし、若しくは弁論準備手続において申述をした後にされたものであるときは、この限りでない。
At the petition of the defendant in litigation involving real property that is under the jurisdiction of the summary court, the summary court must transfer the whole or part of litigation to the district court of jurisdiction in that locality; provided, however, that this does not apply if the defendant has presented an oral argument on the merits of the case before filing that petition.
簡易裁判所は、その管轄に属する不動産に関する訴訟につき被告の申立てがあるときは、訴訟の全部又は一部をその所在地を管轄する地方裁判所に移送しなければならない。ただし、その申立ての前に被告が本案について弁論をした場合は、この限りでない。
Article 20Restriction on Transfer If There Is Exclusive Jurisdiction
第二十条(専属管轄の場合の移送の制限)
The provisions of the preceding three Articles do not apply if the litigation is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court before which it is pending (except exclusive jurisdiction determined by an agreement between the parties pursuant to the provisions of Article 11).
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, if litigation in a prescribed IP action is to be transferred to a court specified in either item of Article 6, paragraph (1) pursuant to the provisions of Article 17 or paragraph (1) of the preceding Article, the provisions of Article 17 or paragraph (1) of the preceding Article apply.
Article 20-2Transfer of Litigation in a Prescribed IP Action
第二十条の二(特許権等に関する訴え等に係る訴訟の移送)
Even if the litigation in a prescribed IP action is under the exclusive jurisdiction of a court specified in either item of Article 6, paragraph (1) pursuant to the provisions of the same paragraph, the court, upon petition or sua sponte, may transfer the whole or part of litigation to the district court that has jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Article 4, 5, or 11 or the district court that must accept litigation transferred to it pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, paragraph (1), if the court finds this to be necessary in order to avoid substantial harm or delay due to its lack of ability to try a specialized and technical matter that is to be tried through the litigation, or due to other circumstances.
At the filing an appeal to the court of second instance as mentioned in Article 6, paragraph (3), the Tokyo High Court, upon petition or sua sponte, may transfer the whole or part of litigation to the Osaka High Court, if it finds this to be necessary in order to avoid substantial harm or delay due to its lack of ability to try a specialized and technical matter that is to be tried by the court of second instance, or due to other circumstances.
東京高等裁判所は、第六条第三項の控訴が提起された場合において、その控訴審において審理すべき専門技術的事項を欠くことその他の事情により著しい損害又は遅滞を避けるため必要があると認めるときは、申立てにより又は職権で、訴訟の全部又は一部を大阪高等裁判所に移送することができる。
第二十一条(即時抗告)
An immediate appeal may be filed against a ruling to transfer litigation or a ruling to deny a petition for transfer.
移送の決定及び移送の申立てを却下した決定に対しては、即時抗告をすることができる。
Article 22Binding Effect of a Judicial Decision for a Transfer
第二十二条(移送の裁判の拘束力等)
A judicial decision for a transfer which has become final and binding is binding on the court that has accepted the transferred case.
確定した移送の裁判は、移送を受けた裁判所を拘束する。
The court that has accepted a transferred case may not further transfer the case to another court.
移送を受けた裁判所は、更に事件を他の裁判所に移送することができない。
Once a judicial decision for a transfer becomes final and binding, the litigation is deemed to have been pending before the court to which it has been transferred since it was first brought to the initial court.
移送の裁判が確定したときは、訴訟は、初めから移送を受けた裁判所に係属していたものとみなす。
Section 3 Disqualifying or Challenging a Court Official
第三節 裁判所職員の除斥及び忌避
Article 23Disqualifying a Judge
第二十三条(裁判官の除斥)
In the following cases, a judge is disqualified from performing the duties of a judge; provided, however, that in the case stated in item (vi), this does not preclude a judge from performing duties as a commissioned judge based on a commission from another court:
裁判官は、次に掲げる場合には、その職務の執行から除斥される。ただし、第六号に掲げる場合にあっては、他の裁判所の嘱託により受託裁判官としてその職務を行うことを妨げない。
if the judge, or the judge's spouse or former spouse, is a party to the case, or is related to a party to the case as a joint obligee, joint obligor, or obligor for redemption;
裁判官又はその配偶者若しくは配偶者であった者が、事件の当事者であるとき、又は事件について当事者と共同権利者、共同義務者若しくは償還義務者の関係にあるとき。
if the judge is or was formerly the relative of a party to the case within the fourth degree of consanguinity or the third degree of affinity, or is or was formerly the cohabiting relative of a party to the case;
裁判官が当事者の四親等内の血族、三親等内の姻族若しくは同居の親族であるとき、又はあったとき。
if the judge is the guardian, guardianship supervisor, curator, curatorship supervisor, assistant, or assistantship supervisor of a party to the case;
裁判官が当事者の後見人、後見監督人、保佐人、保佐監督人、補助人又は補助監督人であるとき。
if the judge becomes a witness or expert in the case;
裁判官が事件について証人又は鑑定人となったとき。
if a judge is or was formerly a party's representative or assistant in court in the case;
裁判官が事件について当事者の代理人又は補佐人であるとき、又はあったとき。
if the judge participated in granting an arbitral award in the case or participated in reaching the judicial decision in the prior instance against which an appeal has been entered.
裁判官が事件について仲裁判断に関与し、又は不服を申し立てられた前審の裁判に関与したとき。
If any of the grounds for disqualification prescribed in the preceding paragraph exist, the court, upon petition or sua sponte, reaches a judicial decision to disqualify.
前項に規定する除斥の原因があるときは、裁判所は、申立てにより又は職権で、除斥の裁判をする。
第二十四条(裁判官の忌避)
If there are circumstances involving a judge which could prejudice the impartiality of a judicial decision, a party may challenge that judge.
裁判官について裁判の公正を妨げるべき事情があるときは、当事者は、その裁判官を忌避することができる。
Once a party has presented an oral argument or entered a statement in preparatory proceedings before a judge, the party may not challenge that judge; provided, however, that this does not apply if the party did not know of the existence of any grounds for challenge at that time or if the grounds for the challenge occur thereafter.
当事者は、裁判官の面前において弁論をし、又は弁論準備手続において申述をしたときは、その裁判官を忌避することができない。ただし、忌避の原因があることを知らなかったとき、又は忌避の原因がその後に生じたときは、この限りでない。
The judicial decision on the disqualification of or challenge against a judge who is a member of a judicial panel or against a single district court judge is reached in the form of a ruling by the court to which the judge belongs, and the judicial decision on the disqualification of or challenge against a summary court judge is reached in the form of a ruling by the district court of jurisdiction in that locality.
合議体の構成員である裁判官及び地方裁判所の一人の裁判官の除斥又は忌避についてはその裁判官の所属する裁判所が、簡易裁判所の裁判官の除斥又は忌避についてはその裁判所の所在地を管轄する地方裁判所が、決定で、裁判をする。
In the district court, the judicial decision referred to in the preceding paragraph is reached by a judicial panel.
地方裁判所における前項の裁判は、合議体でする。
A judge may not be involved in a judicial decision on that judge's own disqualification or on a challenge against that judge.
裁判官は、その除斥又は忌避についての裁判に関与することができない。
No appeal may be entered against a ruling finding grounds for disqualification or challenge.
除斥又は忌避を理由があるとする決定に対しては、不服を申し立てることができない。
An immediate appeal may be filed against a ruling finding there to be no grounds for disqualification or challenge.
除斥又は忌避を理由がないとする決定に対しては、即時抗告をすることができる。
Article 26Stay of Litigation Proceedings
第二十六条(訴訟手続の停止)
If a petition to disqualify or challenge is filed, litigation proceedings must be stayed until the ruling on the petition becomes final and binding; provided, however, that this does not apply with respect to any act requiring urgency.
除斥又は忌避の申立てがあったときは、その申立てについての決定が確定するまで訴訟手続を停止しなければならない。ただし、急速を要する行為については、この限りでない。
Article 27Mutatis Mutandis Application to Court Clerks
第二十七条(裁判所書記官への準用)
The provisions of this Section apply mutatis mutandis to court clerks. This being the case, the judicial decision is reached by the court to which the court clerk belongs.
この節の規定は、裁判所書記官について準用する。この場合においては、裁判は、裁判所書記官の所属する裁判所がする。