A request for review does not preclude the effect of the disposition, enforcement of the disposition, or continuation of the procedures.
審査請求は、処分の効力、処分の執行又は手続の続行を妨げない。
When finding it necessary, the higher administrative agency of the administrative agency reaching the disposition or the reviewing agency that is the administrative agency reaching the disposition may suspend the effect of the disposition, enforcement of the disposition, or continuation of procedures, in full or in part, or take other measures (referred to as "stay of enforcement" below), upon a petition filed by the requestor for review or by its authority.
When finding it necessary, the reviewing agency that is neither the higher administrative agency of the administrative agency reaching the disposition nor the administrative agency reaching the disposition may order a stay of enforcement, by a petition filed by the requestor for review, after hearing opinions of the administrative agency reaching the disposition; provided, however, that the reviewing agency may not take any measures other than suspending the effect of the disposition, stay of enforcement of the disposition, or continuation of procedures, in full or in part.
When a petition has been filed by the requestor for review under the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, and the reviewing agency finds it urgently necessary for avoiding causing serious damage by the disposition, the stay of enforcement of the disposition, or the continuation of procedures, the reviewing agency must order a stay of enforcement; provided, however, that this does not apply when the stay of enforcement is likely to have a material impact on public welfare or when the action on the merits seems groundless.
When determining whether the serious damage prescribed in the preceding paragraph is to be caused or not, the reviewing agency is to consider the level of difficulty in recovering the damage and also take into account the nature and extent of the damage and the content and nature of the disposition.
In the cases referred to in paragraphs (2) through (4), the suspension of the effect of the disposition may not be ordered when the intended purpose may be achieved through measures other than the suspension of the effect of the disposition.
第二項から第四項までの場合において、処分の効力の停止は、処分の効力の停止以外の措置によって目的を達することができるときは、することができない。
When a petition for a stay of enforcement has been filed, or a written opinion stating that the stay of enforcement prescribed in Article 40 should be taken has been submitted by a review officer, the reviewing agency must promptly decide whether or not to order a stay of enforcement.
Read this with the articles around it
(Stay of Enforcement)
When finding it necessary, the higher administrative agency of the administrative agency reaching the disposition or the reviewing agency that is the administrative agency reaching the disposition…
処分庁の上級行政庁又は処分庁である審査庁は、必要があると認める場合には、審査請求人の申立てにより又は職権で、処分の効力、処分の執行又は手続の続行の全部又は一部の停止その他の措置（以下「執行停止」という。）をとることができる。
Open this provision(Stay of Enforcement)
When finding it necessary, the reviewing agency that is neither the higher administrative agency of the administrative agency reaching the disposition nor the administrative agency reaching the…
処分庁の上級行政庁又は処分庁のいずれでもない審査庁は、必要があると認める場合には、審査請求人の申立てにより、処分庁の意見を聴取した上、執行停止をすることができる。ただし、処分の効力、処分の執行又は手続の続行の全部又は一部の停止以外の措置をとることはできない。
Open this provision(Stay of Enforcement)
When a petition has been filed by the requestor for review under the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, and the reviewing agency finds it urgently necessary for avoiding causing serious…
前二項の規定による審査請求人の申立てがあった場合において、処分、処分の執行又は手続の続行により生ずる重大な損害を避けるために緊急の必要があると認めるときは、審査庁は、執行停止をしなければならない。ただし、公共の福祉に重大な影響を及ぼすおそれがあるとき、又は本案について理由がないとみえるときは、この限りでない。
Open this provision(Submission of Written Opinions on Grant of Stay of Enforcement by Review Officers)
When finding it necessary, a review officer may submit a written opinion stating that a stay of enforcement should be granted to the reviewing agency.
審理員は、必要があると認める場合には、審査庁に対し、執行停止をすべき旨の意見書を提出することができる。
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 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)
reviewing agency
「審査庁」
The administrative agency (行政庁) with which a request for review (審査請求) has been filed under Article 4 or under another Act (法律) or a local ordinance (条例), including one that took the case over under Article 14 when the power to decide it passed to it through a change in the laws and regulations (法令).
Short name set inArticle 9, paragraph (1)
review officer
「審理員」
The person a reviewing agency (審査庁) designates under Article 9, paragraph (1), from among its own staff (or from the list under Article 17 where it has made one), to conduct the proceedings on a request for review (審査請求).
Short name set inArticle 11, paragraph (2)
stay of enforcement
「執行停止」
A suspension, in whole or in part, of the effect of a disposition (処分), of its enforcement or of the continuation of the procedure, or another measure, which a reviewing agency (審査庁) that made the disposition or is the higher administrative agency (上級行政庁) of the agency that did may take on the petition of the person requesting review (審査請求人) or on its own authority, where it finds this necessary.
Short name set inArticle 25, paragraph (2)
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.