Chapter III Appeals
第三章 不服申立て
第十七条（審査請求）
第十七条の二（審査庁）
Where the mayor of a city, or the head of a town or village that administers a welfare office, has delegated all or part of the administrative work concerning payment of the allowance to the head of an administrative organ under that person's control pursuant to Article 33, paragraph (2), a request for review of a disposition concerning that work is to be made to the prefectural governor.
Article 18Period for Determination
第十八条（裁決をすべき期間）
When a request for review of a disposition concerning payment of the allowance is made, the prefectural governor must make a determination on the request for review within the period specified in each of the following items for the case classified as set out in that item, counted from the day on which the request for review was made (or, where an order to correct a defect has been issued under Article 23 of the Administrative Complaint Review Act (Act No. 68 of 2014), the day on which the defect was corrected):
都道府県知事は、手当の支給に関する処分についての審査請求がされたときは、当該審査請求がされた日（行政不服審査法（平成二十六年法律第六十八号）第二十三条の規定により不備を補正すべきことを命じた場合にあつては、当該不備が補正された日）から次の各号に掲げる場合の区分に応じそれぞれ当該各号に定める期間内に、当該審査請求に対する裁決をしなければならない。
in the case of a consultation under Article 43, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Complaint Review Act: 80 days;
行政不服審査法第四十三条第一項の規定による諮問をする場合 八十日
in a case other than that set out in the preceding item: 60 days.
前号に掲げる場合以外の場合 六十日
If no determination has been made on a request for review within the period specified in each of the following items for the case classified as set out in that item, counted from the day on which the request for review was made (or, where the requestor for review has been ordered to correct a defect under Article 23 of the Administrative Complaint Review Act, the day on which the requestor for review corrected the defect; the same applies in item (i)), the requestor for review may deem that the prefectural governor has rejected the request for review:
審査請求人は、審査請求をした日（行政不服審査法第二十三条の規定により不備を補正すべきことを命じられた場合にあつては、当該不備を補正した日。第一号において同じ。）から次の各号に掲げる場合の区分に応じそれぞれ当該各号に定める期間内に裁決がないときは、都道府県知事が当該審査請求を棄却したものとみなすことができる。
in a case where notice has been received under Article 43, paragraph (3) of the Administrative Complaint Review Act within 60 days from the day on which the request for review was made: 80 days;
当該審査請求をした日から六十日以内に行政不服審査法第四十三条第三項の規定により通知を受けた場合 八十日
in a case other than that set out in the preceding item: 60 days.
前号に掲げる場合以外の場合 六十日
Article 19Suspension of Completion and Renewal of Prescription
第十九条（時効の完成猶予及び更新）
Article 20Requests for Re-Examination
第二十条（再審査請求）
allowancemachine translation
「手当」
Short for the Child Rearing Allowance (児童扶養手当), which the prefectural governor, etc. (都道府県知事等) pays to the mother who has custody (監護) of, or the father who has custody of and shares a livelihood with, a child whose parents have divorced or whose other parent has died, has a disability of the degree a Cabinet Order (政令) sets, is missing or is in a similar situation, or to another person raising the child (養育者).
Short name set inArticle 4, paragraph (1)
welfare officemachine translation
「福祉事務所」
A welfare office (福祉に関する事務所) under the Social Welfare Act, which a prefecture or city must, and a town or village may, set up by ordinance (条例) to handle measures under the welfare laws.
Defined inArticle 4, paragraph (1)
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 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.