This page provides information related to the dissolution order issued against the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly the Unification Church). The timeline also includes details of a separate fine case, distinct from the dissolution order petition. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the fine case is relevant because it provided a judicial interpretation in advance of the main dispute in the dissolution order petition.
| Type | Focused Act | Nature |
|---|---|---|
| Dissolution Order Petition | Systematic unlawful acts (such as forced donations) | Major non-contentious case (aimed at revoking corporate status) |
| Fine Case | Inadequate response to the right of inquiry | Independent non-contentious case (aimed at imposing sanctions) |
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the fine case addressed the central issue of the dissolution order petition—namely, whether unlawful acts such as forced donations constitute grounds for dissolution under the Religious Corporations Act. In this way, the Court provided its interpretation in advance.
Immediately after this interpretation was issued (March 25, 2025), the Tokyo District Court decided to order dissolution. This has led to reports suggesting that the Supreme Court’s interpretation in the independent fine case may have influenced the District Court’s judgment.
| Type | Focused Act | Final Judgment/Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Dissolution Order Petition | Systematic unlawful acts (such as forced donations) | Dissolution order decided by Tokyo District Court (March 25, 2025); currently under appeal at the High Court |
| Fine Case | Inadequate response to the right of inquiry | Fine of 100,000 yen finalized (March 3, 2025); Supreme Court issued its first ruling that “unlawful acts = grounds for dissolution,” thereby providing the interpretive basis for the dissolution order petition |
In October 2025, UN Special Rapporteurs expressed concern regarding the compatibility of the Tokyo District Court’s dissolution order with Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees freedom of religion.
Their statement pointed out that concepts such as “public welfare” and “social appropriateness,” which formed the basis of the judgment, are vague and overly broad, and may not be suitable as legal grounds for restricting religious activities.
They further emphasized that restrictions on freedom of religion must be limited to those specified in Article 18(3): “public safety, order, health, morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
For the latest updates and a timeline of major past events, please refer to the Japanese page.
