When it is possible to file a request for review for a disposition reached by an administrative agency with an administrative agency other than the administrative agency reaching the disposition, and a law provides that a request for re-investigation may be filed, a person who is dissatisfied with the disposition may file a request for re-investigation with the administrative agency reaching the disposition; provided, however, that this does not apply if the person has filed a request for review pursuant to the provisions of Article 2.
When a person has filed a request for re-investigation pursuant to the provisions of the main clause of the preceding paragraph, the person may not file a request for review until the decision has been made for the request for re-investigation; provided, however, that this does not apply if the case falls under either of the following items:
前項本文の規定により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を経た後でなければ、審査請求をすることができない。ただし、次の各号のいずれかに該当する場合は、この限りでない。
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 person filed the request for re-investigation for the disposition (if the person has been ordered to correct a defect pursuant to the provisions of Article 23 as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 61 following the deemed replacement of terms, the day on which the person corrected the defect);
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
(Requests for Review of Dispositions)
A person who is dissatisfied with a disposition by an administrative agency may file a request for review pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 and Article 5, paragraph (2).
行政庁の処分に不服がある者は、第四条及び第五条第二項の定めるところにより、審査請求をすることができる。
Open this provision(Correction of Written Requests for Review)
When a written request for review violates the provisions of Article 19, the reviewing agency must specify a reasonable period of time and order the correction of the defects within that period.
審査請求書が第十九条の規定に違反する場合には、審査庁は、相当の期間を定め、その期間内に不備を補正すべきことを命じなければならない。
Open this provision(Requests for Re-Investigation)
When it is possible to file a request for review for a disposition reached by an administrative agency with an administrative agency other than the administrative agency reaching the disposition…
行政庁の処分につき処分庁以外の行政庁に対して審査請求をすることができる場合において、法律に再調査の請求をすることができる旨の定めがあるときは、当該処分に不服がある者は、処分庁に対して再調査の請求をすることができる。ただし、当該処分について第二条の規定により審査請求をしたときは、この限りでない。
Open this provision(Application, Mutatis Mutandis of the Provisions on Requests for Review)
The provisions of Article 9, paragraph (4), Article 10 through Article 16, Article 18, paragraph (3), Article 19 (excluding paragraph (3) and paragraph (5), items (i) and (ii)), Article 20…
第九条第四項、第十条から第十六条まで、第十八条第三項、第十九条（第三項並びに第五項第一号及び第二号を除く。）、第二十条、第二十三条、第二十四条、第二十五条（第三項を除く。）、第二十六条、第二十七条、第三十一条（第五項を除く。）、第三十二条（第二項を除く。）、第三十九条、第五十一条及び第五十三条の規定は…
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)
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.