Unless an administrative agency, pursuant to Article 24 of the Administrative Complaint Review Act (Act No. 68 of 2014), dismisses a request for the review of an administrative disposition or inaction under this Act or an Order based on this Act, it must reach a determination in response to the request for review after giving the person requesting the review a reasonable amount of advance notice and after a review officer as prescribed in Article 11, paragraph (2) of that Act has heard opinions in a public forum.
この法律又はこの法律に基づく命令の規定による処分又はその不作為についての審査請求に対する裁決は、行政不服審査法（平成二十六年法律第六十八号）第二十四条の規定により当該審査請求を却下する場合を除き、審査請求人に対して、相当な期間を置いて予告をした上、同法第十一条第二項に規定する審理員が公開による意見の聴取をした後にしなければならない。
When hearing opinions as referred to in the preceding paragraph, the agency must give the person requesting the review and any interested persons an opportunity to present evidence and state their opinions on the matter at issue.
前項の意見の聴取に際しては、審査請求人及び利害関係人に対して、当該事案について、証拠を提示し、意見を述べる機会を与えなければならない。
The provisions of Article 31 of the Administrative Complaint Review Act do not apply to a request for review as prescribed in paragraph (1), and the provisions of paragraphs (2) through (5) of that Article apply mutatis mutandis to a hearing of opinions as referred to in paragraph (1).
第一項に規定する審査請求については、行政不服審査法第三十一条の規定は適用せず、同項の意見の聴取については、同条第二項から第五項までの規定を準用する。
Beyond what is provided for in the preceding three paragraphs, Cabinet Order prescribes the necessary particulars related to proceedings for the hearing of opinions referred to in paragraph (1).
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.