Delegation for relations with Japan Ordinary meeting Debriefing of the 43rd EU-Japan IPM; Exchange of views on the 2024 Family Law reform in Japan and its implications on for the international cases
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
DELEGATIONS European Parliament
Ewa Kopacz
Było to bezpośrednio związane z systemem przyznawania wyłącznej opieki nad dzieckiem tylko jednemu z rodziców, głównie temu, który miał dzieci przy sobie. System włączonej opieki pozbawiał drugiego rodzica praw, a co za tym idzie w praktyce jakichkolwiek kontaktów z dzieckiem, ale też braku jakiejkolwiek wiedzy o nim. Jako Parlament Europejski domagaliśmy się przede wszystkim wprowadzenia po pierwsze skutecznej procedury wykonywania decyzji sądów o powrocie dziecka w ramach procedury haskiej, po drugie zmian w przepisach, które umożliwiają realny bliski kontakt dziecka z obojgiem rodziców po ich rozstaniu oraz po trzecie wprowadzenia do japońskiego prawa rodzinnego możliwości wspólnej opieki nad dzieckiem. Dzisiejsze spotkanie ma na celu przedstawić zmiany w japońskim prawie, jakie w ostatnim czasie zaszły właśnie w tym kontekście i przyjrzeć się ich skuteczności. Muszę przyznać, że rodzice, którzy stracili kontakt ze swoimi dziećmi, a którzy od lat walczą w Japonii o prawo do bycia częścią ich życia, bardzo sceptycznie podchodzą do skuteczności nowych przepisów.
Dlatego chciałabym dzisiaj usłyszeć, jak wprowadzane zmiany mają zapobiec sytuacjom, które opisane zostały w rezolucji Parlamentu z 2020 roku. Jak w praktyce będzie wyglądać sprawowanie wspólnej opieki nad dzieckiem po rozstaniu rodziców i co tak naprawdę kryje się pod hasłem wspólna opieka? Jak nowe zasady będą stosowane przez sądy w sytuacji konfliktu między rodzicami, gdy jeden z nich będzie przeciwny wspólnej opiece, a drugi będzie o takie rozwiązanie wnioskował? I wreszcie po ostatnie, jak nowe przepisy będą mogły stosować się do już rozstrzygniętych spraw o opiekę, jak więc w praktyce będzie wyglądać ta procedura i czy są przewidziane skuteczne mechanizmy egzekwowania decyzji o kontaktach i wspólnej opiece? Pytań, jak państwo widzicie, jest wiele, ale też mnożą się wątpliwości.
Dlatego z zainteresowaniem wysłucham prezentacji dzisiejszych gości ekspertów. Mam ogromną nadzieję, że omawiane przepisy przyczynią się do skutecznej realizacji jednego z podstawowych praw dziecka, jakim jest prawo do bliskich kontaktów i relacji z obojgiem rodziców po ich rozstaniu. Oczywiście w sytuacji, gdy nie zagraża to jego bezpieczeństwu. Dziękuję bardzo, z wielką uwagą będę wsłuchiwać się w wystąpienia naszych zaproszonych gości ekspertów. Dziękuję, panie przewodniczący.
Adam Bielan
Thank you, Ms. Kopacz, for your remarks. I will now give the floor to the representatives of the Japanese government. We have with us two experts, Mr. Yasuyuki Ebata, Director, Hague Convention Division, Consular Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Masuyoshi Furuya, Counselor, Civil Affairs Bureau in Ministry of Justice on behalf of the government of Japan. Mr. Furuya is remotely from Tokyo. Welcome to this meeting and thank you for agreeing to share your expertise.
You both have 10 to 15 minutes for your presentations on behalf of the Japanese government.
Yasuyuki Ebata
Thank you very much, thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished guests and also especially Madam Vice-President and members of the DJP, good morning. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity today. My name is Ebata, Director of the Hague Convention Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. I have come here all the way from Tokyo because I would like to discuss with you the European Parliament resolution adopted in 2020. These days, business trips to Europe are quite expensive, particularly for Japanese people, due to weak yen.
Nevertheless, it is a great pleasure to be here. And this resolution calls on Japan to ensure the return of children under the Hague Convention, facilitate parent-child access, and introduce joint custody. Six years have now passed since its adoption. Today I would like to explain how Japan has changed the situation since 2020. But first, there is one issue I would like to bring to your attention.
The resolution could, in certain circumstances, have unintended consequences. The resolution could, in certain circumstances, have unintended consequences. For example, when a divorced Japanese parent residing in Europe wishes to make a temporary trip to Japan with their children during the summer holidays or Christmas holidays, the other parent may object and seek to prevent the child from leaving the country. In such cases, the matter may be brought before a court. However, the 2020 resolution has been presented to courts as evidence against the Japanese parent.
As a result, courts may issue orders preventing the child from leaving the country. Consequently, some Japanese nationals residing in Europe are unable to return temporarily to Japan with their children. Some children are also unable to visit their grandparents in Japan. Japan-EU relations have deepened considerably in recent years, extending far beyond the economy to areas such as security and many others. At the heart of the relationship are people-to-people exchanges.
I therefore believe we need to find a way to address the concerns surrounding this resolution. Japan ratified the 1980 Hague Convention in 2014, and the Implementation Act of the Convention was enacted also in 2014. In 2020, Japan amended this legislation, bringing about a significant change in the enforcement of court orders for the return of children.
This table shows Japan's track record in return cases. Of the 141 cases that have reached a conclusion, 82 resulted in return and 59 in non-return. Of the 82 cases in which return was decided, 76 resulted in the child's actual return. In other words, 93% of return decisions were implemented and the children were returned to their state of habitual residence, including Europe. The 2020 amendment of implementation act significantly changed the enforcement procedures.
Various conditions and restrictions were removed, making it substantially easier to enforce orders for the return of children. And here is the result. The success rate in enforcement was 44% before 2020. Following the 2020 amendment, it improved dramatically, reaching 75%. Indirect compulsory execution is used to facilitate the implementation of parent-child access arrangements.
This means that when a court has ordered access but the child is not made available for visitation, the parent who fails to comply may be required to pay a specified amount of money for each day that the visitation does not take place. This slide shows the proportion of Hague Convention cases that resulted in arrangements for parent-child access. According to statistics by the HCCH, the average among contracting states is 27%, whereas the figure for Japan is 40%. For comparison, it is 8% for Germany, 26% for France, and 36% for the United Kingdom. Japan also provides comprehensive support for parent-child access.
As this comparison shows, Japan's support programs are more comprehensive than those of many other countries. This chart shows that the percentage of cases in which the courts denied access was only 3 to 5%. In more than 95% of cases, the courts issued decisions allowing parent-child access.
The amended Civil Code came into effect in April of this year, introducing a joint custody after divorce, and also establishing a obligation of mutual respect for individuality and the cooperation between parents. I believe that the Japanese society will change as a result of this reform. The Ministry of Justice will provide further details later. In any event, individual cases need to be resolved through a bilateral framework. In fact, until recently, Germany had also issued a travel advisory like this concerning Japan's implementation of the Hague Convention.
It mentions that even legally binding return decisions of Japanese courts are not enforced against the will of the abducting parent. In February of this year, I held discussions with German Foreign Office to remove the references to the Hague Convention contained in its travel advisory for Japan, and they agreed. As a result, the German travel advisory now reads quite differently. In essence, it says Japan has some difficulties in the past with regard to the enforcement of court decisions. Since 2020, statutory provisions have been in force aimed at facilitating enforcement.
And following Germany, now it is your turn to revise its resolution in 2020. The concerns regarding Japan raised in the resolution have been addressed through significant changes in Japan. Children wrongfully removed to Japan are being returned to their countries. Parent-child access is being properly facilitated. Joint custody has also been introduced in Japan this year.
In addition, the Children and Families Agency was established in 2023. And in short, Japan's legal framework, institutions, and practices have evolved significantly since the adoption of the 2020 resolution. Ladies and gentlemen, Japan has completed all the actions and measures identified in the resolution. Now it is the time to remedy the situation in order to enhance our relationship, including people-to-people exchanges. I believe Japan deserves it.
If you nevertheless encounter any further problems, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are here to help you. At the same time, I would like to ask for your understanding and cooperation in addressing the 2020 European Parliament resolution. There are still Japanese nationals residing in Europe who are unable to return temporarily to Japan with their children. Again, in order to further strengthen our invaluable relationship, I believe we should work together to find practical solutions.
I hope that today's discussion will deepen our mutual understanding and help us move forward together.
Masayoshi Furuya
Good morning, good afternoon in Tokyo. My name is Masayoshi Furuya, counselor of Ministry of Justice. Honorable members of European Parliament, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to speak before you today. Thank you for this valuable opportunity. It is a special pleasure to speak here in Strasbourg, even through webinar, where different languages and legal traditions meet.
Today, I'd like to add a Japanese voice and I promise to keep it very brief. You may already know, as distinguished members of Parliament, Ms. Eva Kovacs said, Japan now allow joint parental responsibility after divorce. In addition to this change, in response to your particular interest in parent-child contact, I'd like to highlight another key part of the reform: the legal duty to respect the other parent. Next slide, please. Can you change... okay, thank you very much.
Summary of amendment. The Civil Code Amendment Act enacted in May 2024 and came into force on 1st of April 2026 this year. The law protects the best interest of child, but it goes further. It clearly states, stipulates that parents must respect each other and work together in matters concerning their child. This duty continues after divorce, even when one parent has parental responsibilities.
I can emphasize our message: divorce may end a marriage, but it doesn't end the duty to respect the other parent. Next slide, please. Okay. What has changed under our family law reform? Why is this so important?
As you can see in the underlined text at the bottom of the slide, this is one of the core part of our reform. The reform introduces the option of joint parental responsibilities after divorce. It also clearly states that parents must respect each other's individuality and work together in matters concerning their child. I heard some foreign parents in Japan has been unable to see their children, some even in foreign countries. There has been concerns that a parent might move a child to gain an advantage in the court case.
If the other parent doesn't know where the child is, contact may become difficult or even impossible. Our amendment law gives courts a clearer basis for considering such conduct.
Next slide, please. Let me give one clear example. A parent moves a child without a good reason. The parent doesn't tell the other parent in advance and refuses to say where the child is. As a result, contact becomes very difficult or even impossible.
The court may now consider this conduct in two ways. First, it may be against the best interest of the child. Second, it may breach the duty to respect and work with the other parent. The second point is especially important in this situation. The seriousness of the breach may count against that parent when the court decides parental responsibility or whether an earlier decision should be changed.
I can recall moving a child without a good reason, hiding a child's location, and blocking contact may have legal consequences. It's clearly stipulated in our revised civil law. Next slide, please. Finally, the Ministry of Justice is making a strong effort to explain the reform. We are producing multilingual brochures, including in French and English, explanatory videos, and detailed questions and answers, all on our website.
We are actively sharing accurate, up-to-date information. This matters because some views of Japan's family law may still be based on the former system. I respectfully invite you to refer to our official materials when considering Japan's legal current system. Please remember three points. The reform is not only about joint parental responsibilities.
Respect for the other parent is now clearly stipulated in our revised civil law. A breach of that duty may affect the court decision. Thank you very much for your kind attention. I'll pass it to the chair.
Adam Bielan
Thank you very much for these informative presentations. They have been distributed in the meeting room and will be circulated by email. Now I would like to pass the floor to our independent academic expert who is also joining us online from Tokyo, Ms. Mari Nagata, who is professor of law at Osaka University and is also a trained mediator of Mediation Center for Family Conflicts and Child Abduction and its ambassador for Japan. Professor Nagata, you have the floor for five to seven minutes. We look forward to hearing your views as an independent academic expert and a practitioner on how these legislative changes could help solve the issues, especially for the European parents who have been facing issues described before.
The floor is yours.
Mari Nagata
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honorable members. Thank you very much for the kind introduction and for the opportunity to address you today. And please allow me to apologize for joining you only online rather than in person. We have just heard about the new legal framework. I'd like to add a researcher's perspective, focusing on how the reform may operate in practice, particularly in relation to parent-child contact and dispute resolution.
Before I begin, one brief terminological note. The expressions joint custody, joint parental responsibility, and joint parental authority used in today's presentations all refer to the same Japanese legal term, kyodo shinken, and I will use joint parental authority. So next slide, please. And the next slide, please. Thank you.
And let me begin with a feature of the Japanese divorce system that is easily missed in a European discussion. In Japan, divorce normally does not mean judicial divorce. According to official statistics, around 90% of divorces are concluded simply by filing an agreed registration form with the municipality. A court does not approve the divorce or scrutinize a parenting plan. Next slide, please.
Against that background, what are, oh sorry, the former one, please. E, ah, yes. No, it's, sorry, the, e, ah, yes, and yes, the second, the next one, please. Yes, ah, thank you very much. And against that background, what are parents choosing under the new system?
This slide shows an early local snapshot. Nationwide official data have since become available. In April 2026, 24.7% of minor children whose parents divorced were under joint parental authority. Because the national figure counts children rather than divorces, it is not directly comparable with the 18% shown here in this slide, but both indicate that the new option is already being used. So next slide, please.
Okay, now to the central question: does joint parental authority actually ensure parent-child contact? Since 2012, Japanese law has required divorcing parents to address parent-child contact in the child's best interests. But parental authority and contact remain legally distinct. Joint authority concerns parental decision-making. It does not by itself secure any particular amount or quality of contact.
In court-related divorce cases involving minor children, about 55% include a contact arrangement. Where the frequency is specified, once a month is the most common pattern. In a European context, that is strikingly limited. The larger blind spot is what happens outside court. Japan has no reliable nationwide official data on whether contact arrangements are made and followed in the great majority of divorces concluded by agreement.
Next, please. A non-governmental survey, although not limited to divorce by agreement, offers a cautionary indication of a broader implementation problem.
The survey was submitted to Ministry of Justice Family Law Subcommittee in 2022. Among respondents who had a contact arrangement, nearly half reported that it was not being fully followed as agreed. This figure requires caution. The survey included only mothers' perspectives and was based on a non-random sample collected through single mother support organizations. Nevertheless, it identifies a serious implementation risk.
Even where parents reach an agreement, continuing contact may remain fragile. A change in the legal category of parental authority cannot transform this established practice overnight. Next please. This is where specialized dispute resolution becomes important. Oh no, next one please, next slide please, yes, thank you.
In Japan, two relevant forms: family court mediation and specialized private ADR. The former can produce a detailed and enforceable agreement, while the latter may offer earlier and more flexible support. Neither is appropriate in every case. Careful screening for domestic violence and coercive control is essential, and judicial protection must remain available. Where it is safe and appropriate, both can help parents develop a detailed workable parenting plan.
Private ADR may also help them adapt it as the child's need and the family circumstances change. Next please, next slide please. And for internationally connected families, continuing contact may be the central issue after separation or divorce beyond the question of a child's return under the Hague Convention. The practical difficulties shown on this slide make cross-border arrangements especially demanding. That is why specialized ADR may have an even greater role to play in international cases, helping parents develop and adapt a workable plan across two countries.
Next slide please. So will joint parental authority change parent-child contact? It creates an important legal possibility but not a guarantee. Its impact will depend largely on arrangements made outside court, where most Japanese divorce occur. Japan therefore needs appropriate ADR, timely court protection and better post-reform data.
Next slide please. So Mr. Chair, honorable members, thank you very much for your attention. I would like to be glad to take your questions. Thank you.
Adam Bielan
Thank you very much for your views, Professor Nagata. Lastly, I would like to welcome our experts from the European Commission, Ms. Angela Sears De Bono, Legal and Policy Officer at the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, and Ms. Patricia De Luca, Team Leader for External Relations in the Civil Justice Policy Unit in the Directorate-General Justice and Consumers. Both are online from Brussels. Colleagues, the floor is yours. You have also five to seven minutes for your comments, please.
Patrizia De Luca
Thank you, thank you Chair for the floor. I am Patricia De Luca. The Commission would like to thank the European Parliament for having organized this important hearing and all participants for their interesting presentation.
The issue of parental child abduction and visiting rights is of the utmost importance for the European Union. It is an essential part of the EU policy to promote the rights of the child, both within the EU and in its external action. In this context, the European Commission has followed developments in Japan since their ratification of the 1980 Hague Convention in 2014. However, notwithstanding the satisfactory implementation law adopted already in 2014, in practice, the return of the abducted child to an EU member state was in several cases hindered by the lack of enforcement of judicial decision of EU courts. And the wide use of allegations of domestic violence by Japanese courts in order to refuse the return of the child to their place of habitual residence was also a matter of concern for us.
Moreover, without the agreement of the Japanese parent, also the visiting rights of the foreign parents were not enforced. Several European citizens reported to the Commission about the lack of cooperation of Japanese authorities in this context, which cut off them permanently from the life of their children. We stress that the children have the right to maintain personal relations and direct contacts with the left-behind parent on a regular basis, in line with the principle of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Japan is a party. And we recall also that under its Article 21, the 1980 Convention has a specific provision in order to facilitate and ensure the protection of the right of access. And it is also a duty of the central authorities to take steps to remove as far as possible obstacles to the exercise of such rights.
The reform of entered into application in April 2020 of the Civil Execution Law and the law implementing the 1980 Convention, well, it is certainly a positive step, but there are still mixed opinions on the actual rate of successful enforcement of foreign decision after this reform. But for us, it is commendable that Japan has shown its awareness of the problem and tried to solve it. We also welcome the introduction of a mediation scheme for international child adoption and access case and would be interested in knowing whether the agreement issued from mediation can be enforced if not respected by one of the parties. And we hope to continue to engage with Japan on this matter. Finally, on the recent reform of the Civil Code, well, the law effectively only came into application on the 1st of April this year, so it is not long enough to assess how this law will work in practice.
But we hope that this shows a remarkable change of attitude and the increasing awareness that even if the parents are divorced, they have both the right to express their views on important issue concerning the children's life. But we stress again that also the participation of both parent to the day-to-day life of their children is important.
So maybe we will have some questions really on the practical application of this new law. What happen if one of the parents does not comply with the agreement that they have reached on the joint parental responsibility and how the courts are involved. And important for us, how this new law is expected to have an impact on the older pending case where the foreign parent was deprived of any contact with their children. And finally about the statistics that have been showed, we would like to understand if they include also voluntary returns or they are the true reflection of cases where a successful enforcement of a return order under the 1980 convention happened against the will of the taking parent. Thanks a lot for your attention.
Adam Bielan
Thank you very much. And now Ms. Patricia De Luca. Sorry, sorry, Ms. Sils De Bono.
Adam Bielan
Okay, thank you very much. So thank you for your insights. I would like to open the floor to members for the questions and comments. We'll first collect all questions and then give the floor for our speakers for their answers and final remarks. Only if time permits, we will be able to have a second round in this debate.
Colleagues, the floor is yours. Mr. Petrov, please.
Hristo Petrov
Thank you, Chair. Let me first thank all participants in this important discussion on children's rights. I'm aware of the importance attached to children in Japanese society and it's essential that the implementation of this reform always respects the best interests of the child. I would like to focus on the practical implications of this reform, which has recently come into force for transitional families and in particular for European Union citizens involved in proceeding relating to the determination of parental responsibility and the change of residence. So, my question goes to Professor Nagata.
From your mediation experience, what are the main safeguards needed to make joint parental responsibility workable when parents live in different countries? For example, how should agreements address the child's residence, international travel, schooling and regular contact with the non-resident parent? And I also have a question on another related topic. With regard to children's right to their identity, could you please explain how Japan approaches the issue of access to information concerning the biological origins of an adopted child, particularly where the child has links to another country or a member state of the European Union? In particular in cases of cross-border adoption, what mechanisms are in place to ensure that once the child has reached the appropriate age, they can effectively access information about their biological parents and family history, whilst respecting the privacy and protection of all parties concerned?
Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska
Dziękuję bardzo, dziękuję za informacje na temat temat bardzo istotny, bardzo ważny, wszyscy chcielibyśmy, aby dzieci były szczęśliwe i miały kontakt z dwojgiem rodziców. Natomiast niezależne źródła wskazują, że ta reforma koncentruje się na pieczy prawnej, parental authority, natomiast nie wprowadza istotnych zmian w egzekwowaniu prawa do kontaktów i wizyt, czyli wzmacnia ramy prawne pieczy, ale nie narzędzia egzekucji parenting time. I tutaj ja mam pytanie do strony japońskiej, czy planowane są w tym zakresie dalsze kroki legislacyjne? A do Komisji Europejskiej mam pytanie, bo w 2020 roku mieliśmy rezolucję, która mówiła o potrzebie ustanowienia takiego specjalnego punktu kontaktowego w portalu e-Justice na przykład, który daje wsparcie konsularne, informacyjne dla obywateli Unii Europejskiej w Japonii. I moje pytanie jest, czy taki taki punkt kontaktowy został zaktualizowany, czy on funkcjonuje, czy ta sprawa, to utworzenie, o którym mówiła rezolucja, ten temat został niezrealizowany?
Dziękuję bardzo.
Camilla Laureti
Thank you, Chair. I have not really, I'm not really have a question, but a proposal. Thank you really to you, because I think that this meeting is really important, and thank you also to our guest for taking part in this public exchange. It's really important, and especially in in this in this moment. I have recently become aware of the differences between certain principles of family law in Japan and the EU member state.
I have also had the opportunity to learn about the situation of an European citizen affected by these differences, including an Italian father, Michele Dall'Arno, maybe you heard about him, who has been denied the opportunity to maintain contact with his own children. In this regard, while once again expressing my appreciation for the importance of today's meeting, I believe that it is also the role of this delegation to hear directly from citizens who are concerned and affected by this issue, about whether and how the positive step presented to us today by our Japanese partners will contribute to resolving the many cases that remain outstanding, always with the best interest of the children at the forefront. I'm confident that there will become the opportunity to participate in one of our forthcoming delegation meeting, and I invite you, kindly invite you, Mr. Chair, to consider inviting them to join us on a future occasion.
Thank you very much.
Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. Following today's discussion, I believe that the key question is not how Japan has changed its legislation, but whether the reform will deliver tangible results in practice. For years, we have been receiving reports from European parents who, as a result of cross-border disputes, have lost contact with their children in Japan. The possibility of establishing joint parental authority after a divorce is therefore an important and positive change. However, changing the law alone will not be enough without its effective implementation and the enforcement of court decisions.
I believe that family law should remain primarily a matter for individual states. However, in cross-border cases involving EU citizens, I expect legal certainty, efficient procedures, and effective protection of the rights of children and their parents. I would like to ask for some more detail on the practical options available to parents in existing cases who wish to seek a review of previous arrangements under the new legislation. We are aware of situations in which an EU national parent has had no meaningful contact with their child for several years. What concrete legal avenues are now available to such parents, and what can the European Parliament realistically do to support them in these cases?
Thank you very much.
Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus
Thank you so much, and thank you so much for the presentation. It was very interesting, especially the presentation of the new law, family law reform. I followed the implementation of this law, and I have a, I am interested in this main principle, obligation of mutual respect, and respect each other, and the principle that parents must cooperate with one. My question about this principle is very simple. Aren't you afraid that the new law will force victims to contact their perpetrators?
What do you think about it? I am very interested about the answer of this question. Thank you.
Adam Bielan
Thank you very much. I don't see any other colleagues who would like to take the floor. I give the floor now to all our experts to answer the questions and for their final remarks. I suggest that we now start with the Commission representatives, then pass the floor to Professor Nagata, and then to the representatives of the Japanese government.
Speaker 23
Thank you. This is Angelos Stergiou-Dermono. I take the floor to reply on the question on the point on whether we have provided on the e-Justice portal the information. I would like to state that the information on relations between European citizens and third states is duly updated on the website of the Hague and the immediate contact points would be the central authorities. However, in the context of the EU, we have the European Judicial Network in civil matters where we often have discussions between central authorities and also discuss specific cases.
When the Commission receives from citizens complaints or requests for information, we duly direct them also to the services or rather to the information which is found on the e-Justice portal as well as on the Hague website. I hope this is a reply to your question. Thank you.
Thank you, Professor Nakata.
Yes.
Mari Nagata
Okay, and I'd like to respond to your questions if it is permissible then in Japanese.
Yes.
Mari Nagata
はい、あの、いろいろなご質問をどうもありがとうございました。 特にですね、その面会交流のですね、執行という点に関しまして、皆様のですね、あの、ご関心が集まっているということがよくわかりました。 で、あの、いくつかですね、その面会交流のですね、履行あるいは執行という点に関してご質問をいただきましたけれども、まずですね、ADRで得られた合意を、まあ、あの、実効的に執行するためにですね、どのような、え、要件が必要なのかというご質問があったかと存じますけれども、その点に関しましては、その、まあ、これは、えっと、メディエーションで得られた合意に関わらずでございますけれども、合意の内容がですね、え、できうる限り、え、特定化されている、すなわちですね、あの、いつ、どこで、どのように合わせるですとか、あの、条件がですね、できる限り、あの、詳細にですね、決められているという必要がございます。 漠然としたですね、合意に関しましては、日本ではですね、あの、最高裁判所の判例などによりまして、え、執行力を付すことが難しいというふうに言われておりますけれども、仮にですね、その合意の内容が極めてですね、あの、まあ、特定化されたもので、ある場合にはですね、間接強制という形で、え、合意に従わないものに対してですね、一定の強制力を及ぼすことが可能となっております。 で、またですね、あの、実効的な面会交流の履行のツールということに、関してでございますけれども、あの、いくつかのですね、ADR機関などでは、面会交流をですね、サポートするようなシステムというものが構築されておりまして、そういったですね、そのADR機関と、あとですね、そのADR機関が提供している面会交流のですね、サポートシステムというものをうまく組み合わせることでですね、あの、今までうまくいっていなかった面会交流というものをですね、あの、少しうまく動かすようなことが、できるということはあり得るのかなというふうには感じております。
ただ、あの、残念ながらですね、日本ではあまりですね、面会交流をこう、あの、幅広くですね、サポートできるような、あの、施設がすごくたくさんあるという状況ではございませんので、こういったことはですね、今後、あの、日本政府、あるいはですね、あの、民間に対してですね、あの、もう少し働きかけていかなければならない点かなというふうに感じています。
Yes, please.
Masayoshi Furuya
いくつかの質問の中で、あの3つ、あの答えさせていただきます。 1つは、あの最後の、あのポーリッシュ・デリゲーションからの、あの質問でしたが、え、ま、DVがあるような場合にも被害者の方が加害者に対してその、え、協力義務を、あの強制されるのかという点に関しては、えっと条文上、民法の条文上は例外はないということなんですが、実際には、あの、え、DVがあるかどうかも含めて裁判所がそれを判断する、え、状況を判断するということになっております。 ま、そうすると、あの、一応法律上は例外はないんですが、そのDVの被害者にまで協力義務をすることを、え、課すということではないというふうに理解していただいて大丈夫です。 えっと2つ目に、あの、え、実際に、え、具体的なツールとして、あの合意ができてないときに、え、例えばEU側の親が取り得る手段にどのようなものがあるかということに関して、私たちも、あの日本国内に、え、居住する外国人で離婚後、日本に居住する子供と会えない状況にある方、外国にいて会えない方というのは、あの把握しております。 まずそのような場合には、え、家庭裁判所に親子交流の審判や調停を申し立てるということが考えられます。
先ほどご説明した通り、そこで、え、例えば外国人の親に無断で住所を変えたりですとか、え、居所を教えないということは、親子、相手方、お、夫婦の間での協力義務に反して、不利益にその後の審判に、え、そうした、あの、義務に違反した方に不利益に判断をされるというふうに、え、考えております。 えっと3点目ですが、あの国際養子縁組の、国境を越えた養子縁組についての出自を知る権利、バイオロジカル、あのオリジンの話ですが、これについては、あの私たちのちょっと、あの今の、え、担当の範囲外ということで、なかなか、え、現、あのこの場でお答えすることは難しいと、え、ご理解いただきたいと思います。 あの、ただ1点、あの日本は今のところ1993年のハーグの国際養子縁組条約にはまだ、あの加盟国にはなっていない状況にあります。 えっと、私の方からの回答は以上です。
Yasuyuki Ebata
えっと、あの日本における親子交流の、ま、支援体制について、あの意見がありましたけれども、まずハーグ条約に関して言えば、あの先ほど、お、スライドでお見せした通り、え、他の主要な、え、ハーグ条約の締約国に比べて、え、日本はかなり手厚い、え、支援を行っています。 で、その中に、親子交流の支援団体というのがありまして、え、それを、え、当事者、ま、あの、え、LBPはですね、あるいは、あのTPも含めてですけれども、え、無償で、え、利用することが、あ、可能です。
日本だけが行っていることです。 えー、あと、まあ、一般的に、えー、申し上げれば、あの、日本には全国に70カ所以上の民間の親子交流の支援団体がありまして、親子交流の付き添い、子の受け渡し、連絡調整などの支援を行っています。 また、親子交流の支援員や関係者が参加する研修や、えー、シンポジウムが定期的に開催されています。 まあ、あの、法改正によって、えー、どのようにそれが、まあ、実施されていくか、いくかっていうことについては、あの、我々も高い関心を持って注視していきますし、あの、先ほど申し上げた通り、えー、この法改正によって、えー、日本社会全体が、えー、徐々に変化していくということが、えー、期待されると思います。
Ewa Kopacz
Bardzo dziękuję panie przewodniczący jeszcze raz za zorganizowanie tego spotkania. Dziękuję stronie japońskiej za pierwszy krok, który został wykonany, za zmianę w prawie cywilnym, rodzicielskim. Niepokoić mogą stwierdzenia, że tylko 24% dzieci pozostaje oczywiście w rodzinach, które się rozpadły pod wspólną opieką rodziców, a jeszcze bardziej niepokoi, że tylko 55% z tej grupy dzieci to są te dzieci, które mają kontakt z obojgiem rodziców raz w miesiącu. Bardzo dziękuję pani poseł Wiśniewskiej za szczególne, bardzo takie w punkt zadane pytania. Oczywiście prawo jest prawem i po owocach ich poznamy, czyli my w biurze koordynatora będziemy chyba tu, koordynatora do spraw praw dzieci, będziemy mieli chyba najbardziej rzetelne statystyki, bo po prostu tych rodziców, jeśli to prawo będzie działać skutecznie, tych rodziców zgłaszających się ze swoimi problemami będzie coraz mniej, a może z czasem zupełnie znikną.
Każdy z nas dorosłych ma obowiązek dbałości o tych najsłabszych, czyli o dzieci. I czy to jest w Japonii, czy to jest w jakimkolwiek innym kraju europejskim czy poza, to my dorośli mamy obowiązek dbałości nie tylko o to, żeby dziecko było zdrowe, ale również o to, żeby rozwijało się i kulturowo, i historycznie, jeśli to jest małżeństwo mieszane, czyli pochodzi z rodziny, gdzie rodzice są z dwóch odrębnych krajów, żeby miało możliwość poznawania i historii, i kultury kraju, z którego wywodzi się jego rodzic. Przy braku kontaktu jest to niemożliwe. A więc rezolucja, która powstała w roku 2020 w Parlamencie Europejskim, nie była wymierzona przeciwko komukolwiek. Wręcz przeciwnie.
Ona była skierowana tylko i wyłącznie na jedno działanie, aby dzieci nie pozostawały bez dbałości o nie przez rodziców, którzy wpływają, dorosłych rodziców, przez społeczeństwa, które mają wpływ na prawodawstwo w danym kraju.
Dlatego bardzo serdecznie dziękuję za ten pierwszy krok. Mam taką szczerą nadzieję, że wszystko pójdzie w dobrym kierunku. Dziękuję pani profesor. Z zaciekawieniem słuchałam pani wypowiedzi. Mam nadzieję, że mediacje, których jest pani zwolennikiem, odegrają szczególną rolę w tych konfliktach rodzinnych.
Jestem też zwolennikiem, aby nie pozostawiać tego tematu jako już załatwionego i odhaczonego. I tu do pana, panie przewodniczący, mam taką serdeczną prośbę, abyśmy w jakimś odstępie czasu, może pod koniec kadencji, spróbowali sobie podsumować, jak to prawo zadziałało i jakie są efekty w praktyce wdrażania tego prawa. Dziękuję bardzo.
Adam Bielan
Thank you very much, Madam Kopacz. Thank you for raising this very important issue and I promise you that we'll organize a follow-up meetings. Thank you all for participating in this discussion and thank to our guests and experts for the valuable contribution. Now I would like to pass to the next item on our agenda, which is the briefing of the 43rd EU-Japan IPM held in Strasbourg on the 8th and 9th of July this year. Dear colleagues, I would like to thank everyone who participated and contributed to the 43rd EU-Japan Interparliamentary Meeting on 8th and 9th of July in Strasbourg.
We had two half days of intensive debates, no doubt a successful interparliamentary meeting with a very good participation on our side, especially on the first day. And also thanks to cooperation with EP parliamentary committees. The high-level delegation from both chambers of the Japanese Diet, consisting of nine MPs, who led by the was led by the long-standing House of Representatives member Mr. Hajime Funada and included four five former cabinet ministers and MPs having 20, 40 plus years of service. There was a general agreement throughout the two days of meetings of the importance of EU-Japan relations in the context of the current systemic global crisis. At the end of the meeting, we signed a joint declaration by the co-chairs, which among other things calls for exploring the ways of how to further deepen our parliamentary relations with the National Diet of Japan, for example, by establishing a joint parliamentary committee.
This call reiterates the proposal in the EP recommendation on the changing security situation in East Asia and the need for closer cooperation with like-minded partners adopted by the Parliament's plenary on 8th of July. Colleagues, please bear in mind that while we are working to strengthen our relations with the Diet, any changes in this regard may require a lengthy process, particularly on the side of our partner parliament, and will ultimately depend on the necessary political will. Regrettably, currently our possibilities to engage with the National Diet on the on a formal basis are limited to one interparliamentary meeting per year, as the current framework of cooperation, unchanged since 1979, does not allow us flexibility to meet more often than once per year, not even online. This substantially differs from relations we have with many other close partners. At present, we are working to agree on a date for the 44th EU-Japan Interparliamentary Meeting, which will be hosted by the National Diet in 2027.
Unfortunately, I am not yet in a position to communicate any specific date, as the National Diet appears to have a particular busy schedule during the weeks allocated to external parliamentary activities, namely the periods during which European Parliament delegations are authorized to travel abroad.
We are working on this together with the secretariats of both parliaments. Currently, the most likely date would be November 2027, but we are doing our best to advance this date to avoid such a lengthy gap between the two IPMs. Waiting until November would indeed mean 15-month long gap between the two IPMs. You will be informed as soon as we reach the agreement. Dear colleagues, it is now your turn to share the impressions and comments regarding the past IPM and also our future parliamentary relations with the Diet.
Madame Wisniewska would like to take the floor, please? No? Not in this point. In the previous one. Okay.
Does anyone want to take the floor? Yes, Mr. Petrov, please.
Hristo Petrov
Thank you, Chair. I would like just to thank you and the secretariat for organizing this interparliamentary meeting. I believe the discussions were of a great quality and we were fortunate to welcome so many high-ranking Japanese members of both chambers of their parliament. On a personal note, I would like to emphasize that it was particularly timely to hold a session on cooperation between the EU and Japan in the field of culture, as I believe this approach represents one of the best ways of strengthening this cooperation, not only between our countries, but also between our people. It would be useful to retain this topic in future interparliamentary meetings.
Maria Ohisalo
Thank you very much, Chair. I would also like to thank all the participants and everybody who arranged the very good meeting and I think it was very fruitful. And I hope, as the Chair, you mentioned that if it's 15 months in between, I think it's quite a long time, so very good if you can work on it and it would happen a bit earlier. I got very excited about Ursula von der Leyen's yesterday's speech about EU-Canada relationship and I obviously started thinking how should we start working in order to Japan-EU, work on the closer cooperation with Japan and EU. I think there is a lot we could do in the same sense that when it comes to Japan, when it comes to Canada, because we are in the same kind of a world of values and we already have so much in common and we're doing so much together.
So I think there should be maybe the next step that we could take and maybe this could be a topic for one of our delegation meetings at some point.
Adam Bielan
Thank you. Any other interventions? No. Thank you very much. Any other business?
No. Our next meetings. Next ordinary delegation meetings are currently planned on Thursday, 5th of November from 10:00 to 11:00 in Brussels and Thursday, 10th of December from 10:00 to 11:00 in Brussels. Please note that holding of the meetings are always subject to availability of meeting rooms and interpretation, usually confirmed one to two weeks ahead of the date. Colleagues, thank you for your valuable participation.
A special thank to the interpretation services and the technicians who ensure smooth running of the meeting. Thank you very much.