mangalindgren

First, the right to sunlight merits consideration. Historically, the Japanese people have been concerned with assuring the access to sunlight. ²⁵² Sunlight-related lawsuits increased significantly in the late 1960s and the early 1970s because people were affected by the construction of tall buildings. In 1972, the Mitamura case was brought in Tokyo for damages due to the obstruction of ventilation and sunlight. ²⁵³ The Supreme Court ²⁵⁴ held that ventilation and sunlight were necessary for a comfortable and healthy life, and therefore deserved legal protection. ²⁵⁵ Although the court's opinion did not explicitly recognize a right to sunlight, it encouraged residents to pursue remedies, including injunctions. ²⁵⁶ This issue arose out of citizens' reactions to the loss of the urban amenities sacrificed during the post-World War II reconstruction period. In spite of a strict catalogue of codified rights, it is noteworthy, considering the role of the court in environmental protection, that the court in the Mitamura case effectively created a right to sunlight and remedies for the encroachment on that right.