辺野古住民ら提訴　代執行承認は「違法」―那覇地裁

　米軍普天間飛行場（沖縄県宜野湾市）の名護市辺野古移設を巡り、軟弱地盤改良のため知事に代わって国が代執行した設計変更の承認は違法だとして、辺野古の周辺住民ら３０人が２２日、承認の取り消しを求める訴訟を那覇地裁に起こした。
　訴状で住民側は、防衛省沖縄防衛局が実施した地盤調査は不適切と主張。設計変更申請は公有水面埋立法の要件を満たさず、埋め立ての必要性も失われているなどとして、代執行による承認は違法だと訴えている。
　沖縄防衛局は２０２０年、地盤改良のための設計変更を県に申請したが、県は不承認とした。福岡高裁那覇支部が昨年１２月の判決で県に承認を命じたが、県が応じなかったため、国土交通相は代わりに承認する代執行に踏み切った。県は判決を不服として最高裁に上告している。
　原告側の代理人弁護士は、これまでの訴訟では埋め立ての内容について審理が尽くされなかったとして、「埋立法の要件が満たされているかを問う裁判だ」と話した。（2024/02/22-13:44）

Residents of Okinawa Prefecture on Thursday filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an approval given by the Japanese government to a design change for a U.S. base relocation project in the Henoko coastal area of the southernmost Japan prefecture.
   The plaintiffs totaling 30, including residents of the Henoko area in the city of Nago, claim that it was illegal for the central government to approve the design change, which is said to be needed to reinforce undersea soft ground found off Henoko, on behalf of Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki, who refused to sign off on the change. The ground improvement is part of landfill work for the project to relocate the U.S. Marine Corps' Futenma air station, now in a densely populated area in the Okinawa city of Ginowan, to Henoko.
   According to the complaint, filed with Naha District Court in Naha, the capital of Okinawa, the residents insist that the ground survey conducted by the Defense Ministry's Okinawa Defense Bureau was inappropriate, saying that the application for the design change did not meet the requirements under the publicly owned water surface reclamation law and that the need for reclamation has been lost.
   The Okinawa Defense Bureau sought Okinawa Prefecture's approval for the design change for the ground improvement in 2020, but Tamaki refused to approve the request. In December last year, the Naha branch of Fukuoka High Court ordered the governor to give the go-ahead. As Tamaki did not comply with the order, land minister Tetsuo Saito approved the design change by proxy. The prefecture filed an appeal against the high court branch ruling with the Supreme Court.
   "This is a trial to ask whether the requirements of the reclamation law have been met," a lawyer representing the plaintiffs said, noting that specifics of the reclamation work were not thoroughly examined in past lawsuits.