A person who is dissatisfied with the ruling on request for examination of a disposition (limited to a disposition related to type 1 statutory entrusted functions defined in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (i) of the Local Autonomy Act (referred to as "type 1 statutory entrusted functions" in the following paragraph and the following Article)) made by the head of a local government (excluding prefectures; the same applies in the following paragraph) pursuant to the provisions of this Act, may make a request for re-examination to the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare (for a disposition under the provisions of Article 59, paragraph (2) (including as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 68, paragraphs (1) and (3)), the Prime Minister; the same applies in the following paragraph).
When the head of a local government delegates the authority to make dispositions related to type 1 statutory entrusted functions among the affairs to be handled by them pursuant to the provisions of this Act to an official positioned as their subsidiary body or to the head of an administrative organ under their control, and a ruling on a request for re-examination which is referred to in Article 255-2, paragraph (2) of the Local Autonomy Act against a disposition taken by the official or head of the administrative organ based on the authority delegated has been made, a person who is dissatisfied with the ruling may make a request for further re-examination to the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare pursuant to the provisions of Article 252-17-4, paragraphs (5) through (7) of that Act.
地方公共団体の長がこの法律の規定によりその処理することとされた事務のうち第一号法定受託事務に係る処分をする権限をその補助機関である職員又はその管理に属する行政機関の長に委任した場合において、委任を受けた職員又は行政機関の長がその委任に基づいてした処分につき、地方自治法第二百五十五条の二第二項の再審査請求の裁決があつたときは、当該裁決に不服がある者は、同法第二百五十二条の十七の四第五項から第七項までの規定の例により、厚生労働大臣に対して再々審査請求をすることができる。
Read this with the articles around it
type 1 statutory entrusted functions
「第一号法定受託事務」
Work classed as type 1 statutory entrusted functions under Article 2, paragraph (9), item (i) of the Local Autonomy Act; where a local government head other than a prefectural governor makes a disposition (処分) in such work under this Act, a person dissatisfied with the ruling on a request for review (審査請求) may request re-examination (再審査請求) from the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, or from the Prime Minister for a disposition under Article 59, paragraph (2) (Article 78).
Short name set inArticle 78, paragraph (1)· applies only in this provision and in Article 78, paragraph (2); and Article 79
Prime Minister
内閣総理大臣
The head of the Cabinet. Designated by the Diet from among its own members, and appointed by the Emperor on that designation (Articles 67 and 6). The Prime Minister appoints and may dismiss the other Ministers of State at will, and a majority of them must be members of the Diet (Article 68). No Minister of State can be subjected to legal action while in office without the Prime Minister's consent (Article 75).
Written by AI using Constitution, Arts. 6, 67, 68, 75 and Wikipedia: Prime Minister of Japan as a reference.
request for re-examination
再審査請求
A further request, by a person who objects to the determination (裁決) on a request for review (審査請求) of a disposition (処分), that can be made only where an Act provides for one against that disposition (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 6, paragraph (1)). It is made to the administrative agency (行政庁) that Act names, against either the original determination (原裁決) or the disposition itself (paragraph (2)): the Employees' Pension Insurance Act, for instance, has it made to the Social Insurance Examination Committee (社会保険審査会) against a social insurance examiner's (社会保険審査官) decision, and disapplies the Administrative Complaint Review Act's rules on it (Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Articles 90, paragraph (1), and 91-2). Another Act can set rules of its own for it in this way (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 1, paragraph (2)). Under the Administrative Complaint Review Act, it must be made within one month of the day after the person learned of the original determination and within a year of it, unless there is a justifiable reason (Article 62). The agency reviewing it decides it by a determination: it dismisses a request that is unlawful, for instance one made too late; rejects one that is groundless, or one where the original determination turned down the request for review wrongly but the disposition was neither unlawful nor unjust; and, where one is well founded, revokes the original determination or the disposition in whole or in part — unless revoking it, or abolishing a de facto act, would seriously harm the public interest, when the agency can reject the request while declaring the determination or disposition unlawful or unjust (Articles 64, paragraphs (1) to (4), and 65, paragraph (1)). 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 the agency that made the disposition to abolish it in whole or in part (Article 65, paragraph (2)). An agency making a determination against which this request can be made must say so in it, naming the agency to make it to and the time allowed (Article 50, paragraph (3)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 1, 6, 50, 62, 64, 65 and Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Arts. 90, 91-2 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.