Administrative Case Litigation Act
行政事件訴訟法
The rules for administrative cases in court, above all for challenging an administrative authority's decision: the kinds of suit, who may bring one and against whom, the time limits, and what the court may order while the case runs and in its judgment.
- Text in force since
- Promulgated
- Articles
- 51
- Amendments on the way
- 3
What this law does
- The Act names six kinds of action over an administrative authority's exercise of public authority (抗告訴訟): to revoke a disposition (処分), meaning a decision or other act exercising public authority (処分の取消しの訴え); to revoke the determination (裁決) on a request for review (審査請求), a word the Act uses for any administrative appeal (裁決の取消しの訴え); to have it declared whether a disposition or determination exists or is valid (無効等確認の訴え); to have it declared illegal that an authority has not decided an application made under laws and regulations within a reasonable period (不作為の違法確認の訴え); to order an authority to make a disposition or determination it should make but has not (義務付けの訴え); and to order it not to make one it should not make and is about to (差止めの訴え). The first two together are called revocation actions (取消訴訟).(Art. 3(1), Art. 3(2), Art. 3(3), Art. 3(4), Art. 3(5), Art. 3(6), Art. 3(7), Art. 9(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
Read the full overview
- Besides these, the Act covers public law-related actions (当事者訴訟): suits over a disposition or determination that confirms or creates a legal relationship between parties, where laws and regulations make one of those parties the defendant, and suits for a declaration or other suits about a legal relationship under public law. A citizen action (民衆訴訟) seeks to correct an act of an organ of the State or a public body that does not conform to the law, and is brought as a voter or in another capacity unrelated to one's own legal interest; an interagency action (機関訴訟) is a dispute between such organs over whether a power exists or how it is used. These two may be brought only in cases an Act (法律) provides for, and only by the persons it names.(Art. 2(1), Art. 4(1), Art. 5(1), Art. 6(1), Art. 42(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A person may sue to revoke a disposition straight away even where a request for review (審査請求) of it is available, unless an Act (法律) says the suit may be brought only after a determination on that request; even then, they may sue without one if three months pass from the request with no determination, if there is an urgent need to avoid significant harm from the disposition, its execution or the continuation of the procedure, or for another justifiable reason. Where a request for review is pending when a person sues straight away, the court may suspend the suit until the determination is made, or, if none comes within three months of the request, until those three months have passed. Where both the disposition and a determination rejecting the request for review of it can be challenged, a suit against the determination cannot seek revocation on the ground that the disposition itself was illegal.(Art. 8(1), Art. 8(2), Art. 8(3), Art. 10(2)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A revocation action (取消訴訟) cannot be brought once six months have passed since the person learned of the disposition or determination, or one year since the day it was made, unless there is a justifiable reason (正当な理由). If the person made a request for review (審査請求), where one could be made or where the authority wrongly told them it could, their six months and one year run instead from learning of the determination on that request and from the day it was made, again unless there is a justifiable reason.(Art. 14(1), Art. 14(2), Art. 14(3)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A revocation action, and under Article 38 any other action against public authority, is brought against the State or public body (公共団体) that the authority which made the disposition or determination belongs to, or against the authority itself where it belongs to neither, reading the authority as the one its power has since passed to, if any; where there is none of these to sue, the defendant is the State or public body to which the work behind the disposition or determination belongs, and a complaint against the State or a public body also names the authority. It may be filed with the court for the defendant's general venue (普通裁判籍) or for where the authority is located, with the court for where a lower administrative organ that handled the case is located, and, for a disposition or determination about real property or a particular place such as expropriated land, with the court where that property or place is. A suit against the State, an incorporated administrative agency (独立行政法人) or a body listed in the Appended Table (別表) may also be filed with the district court located where the high court for the plaintiff's general venue sits.(Art. 11(1), Art. 11(2), Art. 11(3), Art. 11(4), Art. 12(1), Art. 12(2), Art. 12(3), Art. 12(4), Appended Table 1, Art. 38(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Suing to revoke a disposition does not stop it taking effect, being executed or its procedure continuing. Once such a suit, a suit to revoke a determination or one for a declaration of nullity (無効等確認の訴え) has been brought, the court may, on an application, stay (執行停止) all or part of the effect, execution or procedure where this is urgently needed to avoid serious harm they would cause, weighing how hard the harm would be to repair, its nature and extent, and the disposition's content and nature; the effect itself may be stayed only where stopping execution or the procedure would not do. No stay is ordered where it would likely seriously affect public welfare, or where the suit appears to have no grounds on its merits.(Art. 25(1), Art. 25(2), Art. 25(3), Art. 25(4), Art. 29(1), Art. 38(3)) (the provisions it rests on)
Kinds of suit against the governmentAdministrative appeal before suingStanding to sueWhom to sueTime limit to sueStay of executionProvisional mandamus and injunctionEffect of a revoking judgment
Contents
51 228 44 36 27
- Chapter I General Provisions第一章 総則Articles 1–7 · 7
- Chapter II Actions for the Judicial Review of Administrative Dispositions第二章 抗告訴訟Articles 8–38 · 36
- Section 1 Actions for the Revocation of Administrative Dispositions第一節 取消訴訟Articles 8–35 · 29
- Section 2 Other Actions for the Judicial Review of Administrative Dispositions第二節 その他の抗告訴訟Articles 36–38 · 7
- Chapter III Public Law-Related Actions第三章 当事者訴訟Articles 39–41 · 3
- Chapter IV Citizen Actions and Interagency Actions第四章 民衆訴訟及び機関訴訟Articles 42–43 · 2
- Chapter V Auxiliary Provisions第五章 補則Articles 44–46 · 3
Amendments
A Japanese law is changed by another law or order that rewrites it — an . This law has 3 amendments on the way — , but . Its amendment history is below. The amendments this site has read the changes of are on this law's amendments page, provision by provision, in Japanese and English.
1 October 2026
in 1 day
1 April 2027
in 6 months
Act Partially Amending the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act and the Act on Proper Technical Intern Training and Protection of Technical Intern Trainees
出入国管理及び難民認定法及び外国人の技能実習の適正な実施及び技能実習生の保護に関する法律の一部を改正する法律
By 16 April 2027
at the latest, in 7 months
Act Partially Amending the Act on the Activation of Science, Technology and Innovation Creation
科学技術・イノベーション創出の活性化に関する法律の一部を改正する法律
On a day set by , no later than 16 April 2027 — the amending law allows up to nine months from . The exact day is not fixed yet.
9 amendments already in force
21 May 2026
The text on this site
Act Partially Amending the Code of Civil Procedure, etc.
民事訴訟法等の一部を改正する法律
1 April 2025
Act on the Arrangement of Related Acts upon the Enforcement of the Act on Japan Institute for Health Security
国立健康危機管理研究機構法の施行に伴う関係法律の整備に関する法律
16 February 2024
Act on the Promotion of a Smooth Transition to a Decarbonized Growth-Oriented Economic Structure
脱炭素成長型経済構造への円滑な移行の推進に関する法律
1 February 2024
Act Partially Amending the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, etc.
金融商品取引法等の一部を改正する法律
29 November 2023
Act Partially Amending the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, etc.
金融商品取引法等の一部を改正する法律
7 June 2023
Act on the Arrangement of Related Acts upon the Enforcement of the Act on Japan Institute for Health Security
国立健康危機管理研究機構法の施行に伴う関係法律の整備に関する法律
17 June 2022
Act Partially Amending the Act on Special Measures for the Reconstruction and Revitalization of Fukushima
福島復興再生特別措置法の一部を改正する法律
25 May 2022
Act Partially Amending the Code of Civil Procedure, etc.
民事訴訟法等の一部を改正する法律
1 April 2017
Act Partially Amending the International Trade and Investment Insurance Act and the Act on Special Accounts
貿易保険法及び特別会計に関する法律の一部を改正する法律
Who it applies to
It applies to
- A revocation action may be brought only by a person with a legal interest (法律上の利益) in having the disposition or determination revoked, including a person who still has such an interest to recover after its effect has ended, for example because a period has passed. Where that person is not the one the disposition is addressed to, the court does not rely on the wording of the law behind it alone, but considers that law's aims, those of related laws sharing its purpose, and the interests the disposition should take into account, including what would be harmed, and how badly, if it were made in breach of that law. No one may seek revocation on the ground of an illegality unrelated to their own legal interest.(Art. 9(1), Art. 9(2), Art. 10(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- An action for a declaration of nullity (無効等確認の訴え) may be brought only by a person likely to be harmed by a disposition that would follow the one challenged, or another person with a legal interest in the declaration, who cannot achieve their aim by a suit over a present legal relationship that turns on the disposition's existence or validity, as Article 36 words it. An action for a declaration that inaction is illegal (不作為の違法確認の訴え) may be brought only by the person who made the application.(Art. 36(1), Art. 37(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
4 more
- Where no application is involved, a mandamus action (義務付けの訴え) may be brought only if not making the disposition is likely to cause serious harm and there is no other suitable way to avoid it, and only by someone with a legal interest in the order. Where a person applied or made a request for review under laws and regulations, only that person may sue, and only if no decision came within a reasonable period, or the refusal they received should be revoked or is void or non-existent. They must join to it, as the case may be, an action for a declaration that the inaction is illegal, or an action to revoke the refusal or to have it declared void; and a mandamus action seeking a determination on a request for review may be brought only where a revocation or nullity action against the disposition itself cannot be.(Art. 37-2(1), Art. 37-2(3), Art. 37-3(1), Art. 37-3(2), Art. 37-3(3), Art. 37-3(7)) (the provisions it rests on)
- An injunction action (差止めの訴え) may be brought only where making the disposition or determination is likely to cause serious harm, unless there is another suitable way to avoid that harm, and only by someone with a legal interest in the order. In judging the legal interest of someone other than the person the disposition would be addressed to, the court looks beyond the wording of the governing law, as it does for revocation actions (Article 9(2)); the same holds for a mandamus action where no application was made.(Art. 37-4(1), Art. 37-4(3), Art. 37-4(4), Art. 37-2(3), Art. 37-2(4), Art. 9(2)) (the provisions it rests on)
- An administrative authority making a disposition or determination that can be challenged by a revocation action must tell the person it is addressed to, in writing, whom to sue and the time limit for suing, and, where an Act (法律) requires a determination on a request for review before suing, that it does; where an Act allows a suit only against the determination on a request for review, it must say so. Where laws and regulations make one party to a legal relationship that a disposition or determination confirms or creates the defendant in a suit over it, the authority must likewise tell the addressee, in writing, whom to sue and the time limit. None of this applies where the disposition is made orally.(Art. 46(1), Art. 46(2), Art. 46(3)) (the provisions it rests on)
- The court may bring into the suit a third party whose rights the outcome would harm, on its own initiative or at the request of a party or of the third party, and another administrative authority where it finds that necessary. A third party whose rights a revoking judgment harmed, and who through no fault of their own could not take part and so could not put forward arguments or evidence that would have affected the judgment, may challenge the final judgment by a suit for retrial (再審の訴え) within 30 days of learning of it, and not after one year from its becoming final.(Art. 22(1), Art. 23(1), Art. 34(1), Art. 34(2), Art. 34(4)) (the provisions it rests on)
Special rules and exceptions (5)
- Where another Act (法律) makes special provision for administrative case litigation, that provision applies instead of this Act.(Art. 1(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- If a plaintiff in a revocation action names the wrong defendant, without intent or gross negligence, the court may on the plaintiff's application allow the defendant to be changed. The suit against the new defendant then counts, for the time limit, as brought when the first suit was, and the suit against the old one is treated as withdrawn.(Art. 15(1), Art. 15(3), Art. 15(4)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A plaintiff suing to revoke a determination that rejected a request for review may, until oral argument ends, join to that suit a suit to revoke the disposition itself; for the time limit, that suit counts as brought when the suit against the determination was.(Art. 19(1), Art. 20(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A public law-related action (当事者訴訟) for which laws and regulations set a time limit may still be brought after it for a justifiable reason, unless those laws and regulations provide otherwise; the rule for correcting a wrongly named defendant applies to it too.(Art. 40(1), Art. 40(2)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Citizen and interagency actions that seek to revoke a disposition or determination follow the rules for revocation actions, except the standing rule of Article 9 and the limit on grounds in Article 10(1); those seeking a declaration of nullity follow the rules for nullity actions except Article 36; and the others follow the rules for public law-related actions except Articles 39 and 40(1).(Art. 43(1), Art. 43(2), Art. 43(3)) (the provisions it rests on)
How it is enforced (10)
- The Act sets how the courts hear these suits, and anything it does not provide for follows the practice of civil litigation (民事訴訟の例), which this Act does not itself set out.(Art. 7(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- In a revocation action, a nullity action or a public law-related action, the court may, where needed to make the case clear, ask the authority on the defendant's side for materials it holds showing the disposition's content, the legal provisions it rests on, the facts behind it and its other reasons, and ask any other authority to send such materials; in a revocation action brought after a determination on a request for review of the disposition, it may do the same for the record of that review. In these suits, and in the other actions against public authority, the court may also, where it finds it necessary, examine evidence on its own initiative, but must hear the parties' views on the result.(Art. 23-2(1), Art. 23-2(2), Art. 24(1), Art. 38(1), Art. 38(3), Art. 41(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- An application for a stay, or to revoke one, goes to the court hearing the main suit. The decision rests on a prima facie showing (疎明) and may be made without oral argument, though the parties must be heard first; the decision on the application may be challenged by an immediate appeal (即時抗告), which does not suspend it. Once a stay is final, the court may revoke it on the other side's application if its grounds have gone or circumstances have otherwise changed.(Art. 28(1), Art. 25(5), Art. 25(6), Art. 25(7), Art. 25(8), Art. 26(1), Art. 26(2)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Once a stay of execution is applied for, or even after one has been ordered, the Prime Minister () may object to the court, giving reasons that show why public welfare would likely be seriously affected unless the disposition stays in effect, is executed or its procedure continues. The court then cannot order a stay, and must revoke one it has already ordered. The Prime Minister may object only where it is unavoidable, and must report the objection to the Diet at its next ordinary session.(Art. 27(1), Art. 27(2), Art. 27(3), Art. 27(4), Art. 27(6)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Once a mandamus action (義務付けの訴え) or an injunction action (差止めの訴え) has been brought, the court may, on an application, provisionally order the authority to make the disposition or determination (仮の義務付け), or not to make it (仮の差止め), where this is urgently needed to avoid harm that cannot be made good and the suit appears to have grounds on its merits. Neither order is made where it would likely seriously affect public welfare, and the Prime Minister's objection works against them as it does against a stay. If a provisional mandamus order is later revoked, on appeal or because circumstances changed, the authority must revoke the disposition or determination it made under it.(Art. 37-5(1), Art. 37-5(2), Art. 37-5(3), Art. 37-5(4), Art. 37-5(5)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A provisional disposition (仮処分) under the Civil Provisional Remedies Act (民事保全法, Act No. 91 of 1989) cannot be made against an administrative authority's disposition or other act exercising public authority.(Art. 44(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A court may revoke a disposition the authority made at its discretion only where the authority went beyond the bounds of that discretion or abused it. In a mandamus or injunction action that meets its conditions, the court orders the authority to make, or not to make, the disposition or determination where the laws and regulations it rests on clearly show that it should, or should not, or where failing to make it, or making it, would go beyond or abuse the authority's discretion; for a mandamus action following an application or request for review, the suit joined to it must also succeed.(Art. 30(1), Art. 37-2(5), Art. 37-3(5), Art. 37-4(5)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Even where a disposition or determination is illegal, the court may dismiss a claim to revoke it (特別の事情による請求の棄却) where revoking it would cause significant harm to the public interest and, having weighed the plaintiff's harm, how far and how it can be compensated or prevented, and all other circumstances, the court finds revocation not in keeping with public welfare. The judgment must then declare in its main text that the disposition or determination is illegal.(Art. 31(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A judgment revoking a disposition or determination has effect on third parties too, and binds the authority that made it and other authorities concerned in that case. Where what was revoked turned down an application or a request for review, or granted one but was revoked for a defect in procedure, the authority must decide the application or request again, following the judgment's reasoning (判決の趣旨). A stay, and a decision revoking one, likewise has effect on third parties, and a stay binds the authority that made the disposition and other authorities concerned.(Art. 32(1), Art. 33(1), Art. 33(2), Art. 33(3), Art. 32(2), Art. 33(4)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Related claims, among them claims to restore the former state or for damages connected with the disposition or determination, may be joined to a revocation action up to the end of oral argument; where the revocation action is heard first in, or is pending in, a high court, the related claim's defendant must consent, and is taken to consent if it argues the merits without objecting. A related suit pending in another court may be moved, on an application or on the court's own initiative, to the court hearing the revocation action, where the court in which the related suit is pending finds it appropriate, unless either court is a high court. The court may also, on the plaintiff's application and until oral argument ends, allow the revocation claim itself to be changed into a claim for damages or other relief against the State or public body to which the work behind the disposition or determination belongs, where it finds this appropriate and the basis of the claim is unchanged, after hearing the parties and the new defendant.(Art. 13(1), Art. 16(1), Art. 16(2), Art. 19(1), Art. 21(1), Art. 21(3)) (the provisions it rests on)
How it connects to other laws
Cites this lawLawThis law cites it
It also names 34 laws not yet held here.
Where the translation comes from
- 223
- 177
- 3not translated
The Ministry of Justice's translation is shown only where the Japanese it translates matches the law in force today. Everywhere else the English is a machine translation, marked on the paragraph itself.
Only the Japanese is the law, and no lawyer has reviewed the machine translation.
Sources
Everything this page rests on
- e-Gov (Digital Agency)行政事件訴訟法 — the text in force from 2026-05-21Original
- e-Gov (Digital Agency)行政事件訴訟法 — revision historyOriginal
- Japanese Law Translation, Ministry of JusticeAdministrative Case Litigation Act — Ministry of Justice translationOriginal
- Machine translation, not official
- Written for this site with AIEnglish titles of amending laws, written for this site
- Written for this site with AIDescriptions of each law, written for this site
- Written for this site with AICorrections to the Ministry of Justice's English of paragraphs
- Worked out by this site from e-Gov's text