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 written request for review, pursuant to the provisions of Cabinet Order.
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。
A written request for review of a disposition must state the following matters:
処分についての審査請求書には、次に掲げる事項を記載しなければならない。
the name and domicile or residence of the requestor for review;
審査請求人の氏名又は名称及び住所又は居所
the content of the disposition related to the request for review;
審査請求に係る処分の内容
the date on which the requestor for review has come to know that the disposition related to the request for review has been rendered (when a decision was made for a request for re-investigation for the disposition, that decision);
審査請求に係る処分（当該処分について再調査の請求についての決定を経たときは、当該決定）があったことを知った年月日
the purpose and reasons for filing the request for review;
審査請求の趣旨及び理由
whether any instruction has been given by the administrative agency reaching the disposition and the content of the instruction; and
処分庁の教示の有無及びその内容
the date of filing the request for review.
審査請求の年月日
A written request for review of inaction must state the following matters:
不作為についての審査請求書には、次に掲げる事項を記載しなければならない。
the name and domicile or residence of the requestor for review;
審査請求人の氏名又は名称及び住所又は居所
the content of the application for the disposition of the inaction and the date of filing the application; and
the date of filing the request for review.
審査請求の年月日
If a requestor for review is a corporation or other associations or foundations, and representative members have been elected from among requestors for review, or a request for review is to be filed by an agent, the written request for review must state the name and domicile or residence of the representative or administrator, the representative members, or the agent, in addition to the matters stated in the items of paragraph (2) or the items of the preceding paragraph.
In the cases set forth in the following items, a written request for review of a disposition must state the matters specified in each of those items, in addition to the matters prescribed in paragraph (2) and the preceding paragraph:
when filing a request for review without a decision for a request for re-investigation being made pursuant to the provisions of Article 5, paragraph (2), item (i):the date the request for re-investigation has been filed;
第五条第二項第一号の規定により再調査の請求についての決定を経ないで審査請求をする場合 再調査の請求をした年月日
when filing a request for review without a decision for a request for re-investigation being made pursuant to the provisions of Article 5, paragraph (2), item (ii):legitimate grounds for not going through the decision; and
第五条第二項第二号の規定により再調査の請求についての決定を経ないで審査請求をする場合 その決定を経ないことについての正当な理由
when filing a request for review after the period for filing a request for review has elapsed:legitimate grounds prescribed in the proviso to paragraph (1) or (2) of the preceding Article.
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)
A written request for review of a disposition must state the following matters:
処分についての審査請求書には、次に掲げる事項を記載しなければならない。
Open this provision(Submission of Written Requests for Review)
A written request for review of inaction must state the following matters:
不作為についての審査請求書には、次に掲げる事項を記載しなければならない。
Open this provision(Submission of Written Requests for Review)
If a requestor for review is a corporation or other associations or foundations, and representative members have been elected from among requestors for review…
審査請求人が、法人その他の社団若しくは財団である場合、総代を互選した場合又は代理人によって審査請求をする場合には、審査請求書には、第二項各号又は前項各号に掲げる事項のほか、その代表者若しくは管理人、総代又は代理人の氏名及び住所又は居所を記載しなければならない。
Open this provision(Requests for Re-Investigation)
when the administrative agency reaching the disposition does not make a decision for the request for re-investigation even after three months have passed from the day following the day on which the…
当該処分につき再調査の請求をした日（第六十一条において読み替えて準用する第二十三条の規定により不備を補正すべきことを命じられた場合にあっては、当該不備を補正した日）の翌日から起算して三月を経過しても、処分庁が当該再調査の請求につき決定をしない場合
Open this provision(Requests for Re-Investigation)
when there are other legitimate grounds for not going through a decision on a request for a re-investigation.
その他再調査の請求についての決定を経ないことにつき正当な理由がある場合
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)
administrative agency takes no action
「不作為」
An administrative agency's (行政庁) failure to make any disposition (処分) at all on an application made to it under laws and regulations (法令).
Defined inArticle 3, paragraph (1)
administrative agency reaching the disposition
「処分庁」
The administrative agency (行政庁) that made the disposition (処分) concerned.
Short name set inArticle 4, paragraph (1), item (i)
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)
Prefectural or Municipal Ordinance
条例
A rule a local government makes for itself: a prefecture (都道府県), a city, town or village (市町村), or one of Tokyo's special wards (特別区) (Local Autonomy Act, Articles 1-3, 281 and 283). Its assembly (議会), whose members the residents elect, passes it (Articles 89 and 96, paragraph (1), item (i)), and its head — the governor or the mayor (Article 139) — promulgates it, that is, makes it public so that it can take effect (Article 16). The Constitution lets local governments make them within the limits of Acts (Constitution, Article 94), and one may not go against the national laws and regulations (法令), such as Acts, Cabinet Orders (政令) and Ministerial Orders (省令) (Local Autonomy Act, Article 14, paragraph (1)). Unless national laws and regulations provide otherwise, a local government can impose a duty or restrict a right only by one of these (Article 14, paragraph (2)), and it may write into one penalties for breaking it, within limits the Local Autonomy Act sets (Article 14, paragraph (3)). It is made for that local government's own affairs (Article 2, paragraph (2) and Article 14, paragraph (1)), so the same matter can be handled differently from one place to the next. It is a local rule, not a national one: an "ordinance" in the name of a national rule, such as an Ordinance for Enforcement of an Act, is usually a Ministerial Order (省令) or another national instrument.
Written by AI using Constitution, Art. 94 and Local Autonomy Act, Arts. 1-3, 2, 14, 16, 89, 96, 139, 281, 283 as a reference.
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.