A request for review cannot be filed against the cease and desist orders, payment orders and competition restoration orders of the Japan Fair Trade Commission, the approvals, decisions and any other measures under the provisions of this Section (including measures of investigators under the provisions of Article 47, paragraph (2) and measures of designated staff members under the provisions of this Section), or the failure to act on any of them.
Read this with the articles around it
cease and desist order
「排除措置命令」
An order the Japan Fair Trade Commission makes under Article 7, paragraph (1) or (2) (including as applied by Article 8-2, paragraph (2) and Article 20, paragraph (2)), Article 8-2, paragraph (1) or (3), Article 17-2 or Article 20, paragraph (1), requiring the measures needed to end a violation.
Short name set inArticle 49, paragraph (1)
designated staff member
「指定職員」
The Japan Fair Trade Commission staff member whom the Commission designates for each case to preside over the hearing (意見聴取).
Short name set inArticle 53, paragraph (1)
payment order
「納付命令」
An order the Japan Fair Trade Commission makes under Article 7-2, paragraph (1) (including as applied by Article 8-3), Article 7-9, paragraph (1) or (2) or Articles 20-2 to 20-6, requiring an enterprise to pay a surcharge (課徴金) to the national treasury; it is given in a written payment order stating the amount, its basis, the violation and the deadline.
Short name set inArticle 62, paragraph (1)
competition restoration order
「競争回復措置命令」
An order the Japan Fair Trade Commission makes under Article 8-4, paragraph (1) where a monopolistic situation (独占的状態) exists, requiring an enterprise to transfer part of its business or take other measures needed to restore competition.
Short name set inArticle 64, paragraph (1)
Fair Trade Commission
公正取引委員会
The body the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (独占禁止法, the Antimonopoly Act) sets up to achieve that Act's purpose — among other things, to promote fair and free competition by banning private monopolization, unreasonable restraint of trade and unfair trade practices, and so to protect the interests of general consumers and the democratic and sound development of the national economy (Antimonopoly Act, Articles 1 and 27, paragraph (1)). It comes under the Prime Minister's jurisdiction, but its chairperson and four commissioners — appointed by the Prime Minister with the consent of both Houses of the Diet — exercise their authority independently (Articles 27, paragraph (2), 28 and 29). Under the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, businesses and trade associations may, with the approval of both the Prime Minister and the Fair Trade Commission, conclude or set agreements or rules (協定又は規約) on premiums or representations (Article 36, paragraph (1)).
Written by AI using Antimonopoly Act, Arts. 1, 27, 28, 29 and Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, Art. 36 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.