A request for review of a disposition may not be filed when three months have passed from the day following the day on which the relevant person has come to know that the disposition was rendered (if a request for re-investigation has been filed for the disposition, when one month has passed from the day following the day on which the relevant person has come to know that the decision was made for the request for re-investigation); provided, however, that this does not apply when there are legitimate grounds.
処分についての審査請求は、処分があったことを知った日の翌日から起算して三月（当該処分について再調査の請求をしたときは、当該再調査の請求についての決定があったことを知った日の翌日から起算して一月）を経過したときは、することができない。ただし、正当な理由があるときは、この限りでない。
A request for review of a disposition may not be filed when one year has passed from the day following the day on which the disposition was rendered (if a request for re-investigation has been filed for the disposition, decision on the request for re-investigation); provided, however, that this does not apply when there are legitimate grounds.
処分についての審査請求は、処分（当該処分について再調査の請求をしたときは、当該再調査の請求についての決定）があった日の翌日から起算して一年を経過したときは、することができない。ただし、正当な理由があるときは、この限りでない。
When a written request for review prescribed in the following Article has been submitted by mail or corresponding delivery as defined in Article 2, paragraph (2) of the Act on Correspondence Delivery by Private Business Operators (Act No. 99 of 2002) conducted by a general correspondence delivery operator as defined in paragraph (6) of that Article or a specified letter delivery operator as defined in paragraph (9) of that Article, the number of days required for the delivery is not to be included in the calculation of the period prescribed in the preceding two paragraphs (referred to as "period for filing a request for review" below).
Read this with the articles around it
(Period for Filing Requests for Review)
A request for review of a disposition may not be filed when three months have passed from the day following the day on which the relevant person has come to know that the disposition was rendered…
処分についての審査請求は、処分があったことを知った日の翌日から起算して三月（当該処分について再調査の請求をしたときは、当該再調査の請求についての決定があったことを知った日の翌日から起算して一月）を経過したときは、することができない。ただし、正当な理由があるときは、この限りでない。
Open this provision(Period for Filing Requests for Review)
A request for review of a disposition may not be filed when one year has passed from the day following the day on which the disposition was rendered…
処分についての審査請求は、処分（当該処分について再調査の請求をしたときは、当該再調査の請求についての決定）があった日の翌日から起算して一年を経過したときは、することができない。ただし、正当な理由があるときは、この限りでない。
Open this provision(Submission of Written Requests for Review)
Unless other laws (for a disposition based on Prefectural or Municipal Ordinance, that Ordinance) provide that a request may be filed orally, a request for review must be filed by submitting a…
審査請求は、他の法律（条例に基づく処分については、条例）に口頭ですることができる旨の定めがある場合を除き、政令で定めるところにより、審査請求書を提出してしなければならない。
Open this provisiondisposition
「処分」
In this Act, a disposition (処分) of an administrative agency (行政庁) or any other act that is an exercise of public authority (公権力): the acts against which this Act lets a person appeal, unless another Act (法律) provides otherwise.
Short name set inArticle 1, paragraph (2)
period for filing a request for review
「審査請求期間」
The time limits in Article 18, paragraphs (1) and (2) for filing a request for review (審査請求) of a disposition (処分) — three months from the day after the person learns of it and one year from the day after it was made (counted instead from the decision on a request for re-investigation (再調査の請求), with one month from learning of it, where one was filed), unless there is a justifiable reason — in computing which the days a written request sent by post or correspondence delivery (信書便) spends in transit are not counted.
Short name set inArticle 18, paragraph (3)
request for re-investigation
再調査の請求
A request to the administrative agency (行政庁) that made a disposition (処分) to look into it again. A person who objects to the disposition can make one only where a request for review (審査請求) of it can be made to another agency and an Act provides that this request can be made, and not once the person has made a request for review of it (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 5, paragraph (1)). Another Act can set rules of its own for it (Article 1, paragraph (2)): the Act on General Rules for National Taxes, for instance, lets a person who objects to a disposition of a district director (税務署長) as a rule choose between a request for re-investigation to that director and a request for review to the President of the National Tax Tribunal (国税不服審判所長) (Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Article 75, paragraph (1), item (i)). Under the Administrative Complaint Review Act, it must be made within three months of the day after the person learned of the disposition and within a year of the disposition, unless there is a justifiable reason (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 54). A person who has made one cannot make a request for review until the agency has decided it, unless three months pass from the day after it was made — or, where the agency ordered a defect in it corrected, the day after the correction — without a decision, or there is another justifiable reason (Article 5, paragraph (2)); where it is still pending after those three months, the agency must tell the person in writing that they can make a request for review straight away (Article 57). The agency decides it by a decision (決定): it dismisses a request that is unlawful, for instance one made too late, rejects one that is groundless, and, where one is well founded, revokes the disposition in whole or in part or changes it, though never to the disadvantage of the person who made the request; where it is about a de facto act (事実上の行為), the decision instead declares the act unlawful or unjust and abolishes it in whole or in part or changes it (Articles 58 and 59). Unless the decision revokes the whole disposition or abolishes the whole of a de facto act, it must tell the person that a request for review can be made — after a dismissal, only where the dismissal was unlawful — to which agency and within what time (Article 60, paragraph (2)); that request for review must be made within one month of the day after the person learned of the decision and within a year of the decision, unless there is a justifiable reason (Article 18, paragraphs (1) and (2)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 1, 5, 18, 54, 57 to 60 and Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Art. 75 as a reference.
request for review
審査請求
A request to an administrative agency (行政庁) to review a disposition (処分) the person objects to, or, where the person applied for a disposition under a law or regulation and a reasonable time has passed with none made, the agency's failure to act (不作為) (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Articles 2 and 3). Unless an Act, or for a disposition based on a local ordinance (条例) that ordinance, provides otherwise, it is made to the agency that made the disposition or failed to act where that agency has no superior agency or is itself the competent minister (主任の大臣) or the head of certain agencies; where such a minister or head is the agency above it, to that minister or head; and otherwise to its highest superior agency (Article 4). Another Act can set rules of its own for it, naming another body to make it to or another route (Article 1, paragraph (2); Article 4): the Employees' Pension Insurance Act, for instance, has a request about a disposition (処分) of the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare (厚生労働大臣) on a person's status as insured, standard remuneration or insurance benefits, other than a decision on a request to correct the pension insurance register, made to a social insurance examiner (社会保険審査官), and disapplies most of the Administrative Complaint Review Act's rules for it (Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Articles 90, paragraph (1), and 91-2). Under the Administrative Complaint Review Act, a request about a disposition must be made within three months of the day after the person learned of it — or one month after learning of the decision, where a request for re-investigation (再調査の請求) was made first — and within a year of the disposition or that decision, unless there is a justifiable reason (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 18, paragraphs (1) and (2)). Making one does not by itself stop the disposition taking effect or being carried out, or the proceedings going on (Article 25, paragraph (1)), but the agency reviewing it can suspend them in whole or in part on the application of the person who made the request — and, where it made the disposition or is the agency above the one that did, of its own motion — and, once the person who made the request has applied, must where that is urgently needed to avoid serious harm, unless that would seriously affect the public welfare or the request appears to have no grounds (Article 25, paragraphs (2) to (4)). The agency reviewing it (審査庁) decides it by a determination (裁決): it dismisses a request that is unlawful, for instance one made too late, rejects one that is groundless, and, where one is well founded, revokes the disposition in whole or in part or changes it — though never to the disadvantage of the person who made the request, and an agency that neither made the disposition nor is above the agency that did cannot change it (Articles 45, paragraphs (1) and (2), 46, paragraph (1), and 48). Where the request is about a de facto act (事実上の行為), the determination instead declares the act unlawful or unjust and orders it abolished in whole or in part or changed, or abolishes or changes it (Article 47). A well-founded request about a failure to act ends instead in a determination declaring the failure unlawful or unjust, and, where the agency finds a disposition should be made, an order to make it or the disposition itself (Article 49, paragraph (3)). Where revoking an unlawful or unjust disposition, or abolishing an unlawful or unjust de facto act, would seriously harm the public interest, the agency can reject the request while declaring in the determination that it is unlawful or unjust (Article 45, paragraph (3)). The determination takes effect when it is served on the person who made the request — or, where someone other than the disposition's addressee made it and the determination revokes or changes the disposition or deals with a de facto act, once it is served on the addressee too — and binds the agencies concerned (Articles 51, paragraph (1), and 52, paragraph (1)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 1 to 4, 18, 25, 45 to 49, 51, 52 and Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Arts. 90, 91-2 as a reference.