Supreme Court Sets ID Code Rules for Criminal and Juvenile Cases

The Supreme Court promulgated Supreme Court Rule No. 14 (Rules Concerning the Assignment of Identification Codes Used in Procedures for Criminal Cases, etc.) in the Official Gazette dated October 23, 2026. These rules establish the process from the assignment to the suspension of identification codes for the use of electronic data processing systems in criminal and juvenile case procedures, consisting of four articles and supplementary provisions. The effective date is set as the date of enforcement of the Act for Partial Amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, etc., to Respond to Advancements in Information and Communication Technology (Act No. 39 of 2025); as of the time of promulgation, a specific date has not been indicated.

The rules define an identification code as “characters, numbers, symbols, or other codes that are assigned such that they differ for each user, thereby enabling the identification of a specific user.” The scope covers electronic data processing systems prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. 131 of 1948), the Rules of Criminal Procedure (Supreme Court Rule No. 32 of 1948), and other laws and regulations, serving as a separate framework from existing rules targeting civil cases. The promulgation document bears the name of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Yukihiko Imazaki.

Framework of Article 1 Establishing Notification Items and Identity Verification

Article 1 mandates that any person seeking to obtain an identification code must notify the Supreme Court in advance and requires the method of inputting and transmitting the notification from a computer used for such purposes. The notification items are limited to the following five points:

• Name and address (for corporations or associations/foundations with designated representatives or managers: the name, the name of the representative or manager, and the location of the principal office)
• Telephone number
• Email address (limited to emails as defined in Article 2, Item 1 of the Act on Regulation of Transmission of Specified Electronic Mail (Act No. 26 of 2002) that use the communication method prescribed by the detailed rules of the Supreme Court)
• Date of birth (for corporations, etc.: the date of birth of the representative or manager)
• Other matters determined by the Supreme Court as necessary

The notifier must undergo identity verification measures prescribed by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court shall assign an identification code upon acceptance of the notification. However, an exception is provided allowing the assignment of codes without notification to persons deemed appropriate for such assignment.

Professional Use by Attorneys and Management of Passcodes

Article 2 stipulates that when an attorney files a notification for professional purposes, they must provide proof of their status as an attorney. Upon acceptance, the Supreme Court shall assign an identification code for the use of the electronic data processing system for the attorney’s professional business.

Article 3 deals with management after issuance. A person who has been granted an identification code must set a password on a computer and notify the court without delay; furthermore, they must notify the court without delay in any of the following cases: change of notified items, change of password, or discontinuation of the use of the identification code. The Supreme Court is permitted to grant a password different from the notified password each time the identification code is used, and those granted a code without prior notification are required to be granted a separate password.

Six Grounds for Suspension of Use and Handling of Non-use for 90 Days

Article 4 lists six items under which the Supreme Court may suspend the use of an identification code:

• When the identification code was obtained through falsehood or other fraudulent means
• When a person other than the grantee has fraudulently acquired the identification code
• When an unauthorized access act, as defined in Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the Act on Prohibition of Unauthorized Computer Access (Act No. 128 of 1999), was committed against the computer of the court
• When the identification code has not been used for 90 days from the date of issuance, or when it is otherwise recognized that there is no longer a need for its use
• When an attorney becomes unable to perform their duties due to the provisions of laws and regulations
• When there are other special circumstances where it is recognized that continuing the use of the electronic data processing system is inappropriate

Related Notifications Establishing Transitional Measures Until Enforcement

The Official Gazette of the same day also published notifications from the Supreme Court that support the operation of the rules. Supreme Court Notification No. 8 amended the Guidelines for Identity Verification Methods for Procedures Concerning Civil Cases, etc. (Supreme Court Notification No. 5 of 2026), adding a method for persons who have been granted an identification code under the new rules to provide their existing identification code to the court when filing a new notification. Supreme Court Notification No. 9 defines the scope of criminal cases stipulated in the main text of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Supplementary Provisions of the amended law, dividing the target cases and courts into four stages: from the date of enforcement to May 9, 2027; from May 10 to June 13 of the same year; from June 14 to July 11 of the same year; and from July 12 of the same year onwards.

For attorneys, as a prerequisite for using electronic procedures for criminal and juvenile cases, it will now be necessary to notify their name, contact information, date of birth, etc., provide proof of attorney status, and set a password. In court practice, since non-use for 90 days or the suspension of attorney duties are grounds for the suspension of the identification code, the management of periods during which an attorney has no assigned cases will also become an operational point of contention.

Source: Supreme Court Rule No. 14, “Rules Concerning the Assignment of Identification Codes Used in Procedures Regarding Criminal Cases, etc.” (published in the Official Gazette on October 23, 2026) (Supreme Court, October 23, 2026, Chief Justice Yukihiko Imazaki). Related: Supreme Court Notice No. 8, Supreme Court Notice No. 9 (same date).