Immediate Appeal against the Dismissal of the Petition for a Provisional Injunction to Suspend Operation of Kansai Electric Power Company's Takahama Nuclear Power Plant Units 1-4 (Reiwa 6 (Ra) No. 36)

In 2024, residents near the Takahama Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui Prefecture filed a petition for a provisional injunction to halt the operation of Units 1 through 4, arguing that the risk assessment for severe accidents, earthquakes, and tsunamis was inadequate and that continued operation posed an imminent threat to their lives. The Osaka District Court dismissed the petition, finding no urgent danger. The residents filed an immediate appeal (kōkoku) to the Osaka High Court. In early 2025, the High Court upheld the lower court`s decision, ruling that the Nuclear Regulation Authority`s safety review was lawful and that the residents failed to demonstrate the existence of a concrete and imminent risk sufficient to justify a pre-trial injunction. The court emphasized that the regulatory framework adequately ensured safety.

The Osaka High Court dismissed the immediate appeal, affirming the district court`s decision to deny the provisional injunction. The operation of Takahama Units 1-4 was allowed to continue, with the court finding no legal grounds for an emergency suspension.

The central dispute focused on whether the Takahama Units 1-4, particularly the aging Units 1 and 2, complied with the new post-Fukushima safety standards. Key issues included the adequacy of seismic and tsunami risk assessments, the reliability of filtered containment venting systems, and whether the residents' fear of a severe accident constituted an "urgent necessity" to warrant an interim injunction before the main lawsuit was concluded.

The ruling was hailed by the government and the nuclear industry as a judicial endorsement of the restarted units and the effectiveness of the new safety regime, contributing to stable energy supply. However, it drew strong condemnation from anti-nuclear groups, evacuated communities, and legal scholars, who argued the decision ignored scientific uncertainties and the lessons of Fukushima, further eroding public trust in judicial oversight of nuclear safety.