In court, Kitahara seized on the fact that the university's decision to revoke Mikiko's degree did not specify the specific applicable rules and regulations, and launched another attack.

Many big figures sitting in the auditorium probably did not expect that the court hearing would be so intense, and they showed some intriguing expressions. Especially the two officials from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. They had previously listened to Takeuchi's report.

At that time, Kyoto University reported this trial as the final trial that would completely crush the opponent and achieve complete victory. You only need to sit in the audience to appreciate the opponent's disastrous defeat. However, at the beginning of the trial, it was obvious that

It is somewhat different from the university’s previous reports.

Perhaps sensing something unusual in the demeanor of the big shots, Takeuchi then turned sideways and quietly said to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology official beside him, "Committee, please don't be fooled by the other party's momentum. The other party just did it because he didn't have sufficient grounds.

This is the only way to create momentum. We will completely refute their claims."

Just as Takeuchi's voice fell——

Immediately, Asakura Yan stood up again and looked at the referee's box.

All the eyes of the audience could not help but focus on this top expert in administrative law.

The question raised by the plaintiff's lawyer just now is indeed true, and there are no specific applicable regulations stated in university documents. How should this great authority in administrative law refute it?

Asakura Yan straightened his chest slightly and said calmly and confidently: "Chief referee. Yes, the university has not written down specific applicable standards for degree decisions. However, the defendant's attorney reminded the collegial panel to pay attention to the "Academic Misconduct Handling and Prevention"

There is only one provision in the Code regarding academic misconduct leading to the revocation of a degree, which is Article 89. There is also only one provision in the "Regulations on the Awarding of National Legal Person Degrees" regarding academic misconduct and the revocation of a degree, which is Article 53

.”

"Even if Kyoto University does not specify specific applicable norms in relevant documents, if the plaintiff reads the "Principles for the Handling and Prevention of Academic Misconduct" and the "Regulations on the Awarding of National Legal Person Degrees", he can successfully find the correct norms, because these two

In each document, there is only one corresponding article."

"In other words, regardless of whether Kyoto University states specific norms in relevant documents, it will not affect the basis for the plaintiff to inquire about the defendant's corresponding behavior. Therefore, the question raised by the plaintiff's attorney that does not state the specific applicable norms,

It will not substantially damage the plaintiff’s procedural rights!”

Asakura Yan's discussion is completed.

A counterattack was made.

Everyone present once again realized that the name of this top authority was by no means a false claim.

It is true that university documents do not set out specific specifications.

However, if there is only one relevant specification.

Then, even if you don't tell which specific items it is, you can still find the corresponding specification through the name of the file.

Although there are no stated regulations, it does not substantially hinder the plaintiff's search for legal basis.

It's really a counterattack angle that no one could have imagined.

However, just when everyone was amazed by Asakura Yan's counterattack, Kitahara took a step forward and started walking in the court. He could only hear him sneer and say: "The chief judge. What the defendant's attorney just said is essentially

The above is using causation to confuse the legality of an action."

】

"What does that mean?"

Kitahara's voice continued: "Suppose in an execution ground, the prisoner is about to be electrocuted in the electric chair. However, the victim's family members were excited and pressed the start button on the electric chair first. The prisoner died immediately due to the electric shock. So in

In this case, I would like to ask whether the victim's family members constitute intentional homicide? There is no doubt that regardless of whether the victim's family members press the start button of the electric chair, the prisoner will die due to the subsequent electrocution. From the perspective of causality,

, the victim’s family members activating the electric chair will not change the outcome of the prisoner’s subsequent death.”

"However, causation cannot equal the legality of an action."

"The act of privately activating the electric chair by the victim's family constitutes the crime of intentional homicide. Looking back at the case itself, the defendant's attorney just argued that regardless of whether the relevant legal basis is stated, it will not affect the specific standards for the plaintiff's inquiry, because the relevant

There is only one norm. However, this has nothing to do with determining the legality of the defendant's behavior. Failure to state a specific norm is illegal. As for whether it substantially affects the result of the plaintiff's review of the specific norm, it is not the core factor in determining the legality of the act!

!”

Like an eagle fluttering its wings, the eagle cries in the sky.

Kitahara made a strong rebuttal.

However, the next second, Asakura Yan immediately raised his voice again and replied: "The example cited by the plaintiff's attorney is not appropriate. In fact, the plaintiff's attorney also ignored a problem. Even assuming that Kyoto University revoked his degree in this case

The act is an administrative act, but not all illegal administrative acts must be revoked. There are serious and minor violations. For minor violations, the court does not have to cancel them."

"The defendant's attorney has just stated to the court that the two normative documents cited in the decision to revoke the degree are related to the revocation of the degree. Therefore, regardless of whether the defendant informed Mikiko of the corresponding specific norms, it will not arise.

Significant substantive impact. In other words, even if the defendant Kyoto University indeed violated the law according to what the plaintiff’s attorney said, it was only a minor violation and does not constitute a reason for its cancellation!”

This top scholar once again demonstrated his incomparable familiarity with administrative law.

Yes, if an administrative act is illegal, but as long as it is minor and does not produce substantial unfair effects, the court does not necessarily have to revoke the act.

"If the specific legal basis is not stated, it can be regarded as a minor violation. How can there be any behavior that is not considered a minor violation?" Kitahara also raised his voice and fired back: "State the applicable administrative behavior.

The legal basis is the main legal obligation that administrative agencies and relevant organizations must fulfill to perform administrative functions. It indicates the legal source of the corresponding power and is the premise and basis for the exercise of the corresponding power. How can the premise be an unimportant thing?!

How can the defendant's attorney call this an irrelevant detail?!"

Asakura Yan's voice immediately sounded again, "Kyoto University has stated the legal basis. The relevant decision has stated that the norms cited come from the "Academic Misconduct Handling and Prevention Code" and the "National Legal Person Degree Awarding Regulations", but

It did not state which specific clause it was. The plaintiff’s attorney repeatedly found fault and described a small mistake as a huge disaster. Such nonsense and exaggeration are definitely not legitimate and reasonable demands!!!”

In court debate——
Chapter completed!