Search

Search provisions, jump to a law or an article

1 article

Article 37-3

第三十七条の三

In the case set forth in Article 3, paragraph (6), item (ii), a mandamus action may be filed only when any of the requirements listed in the following items is satisfied:

第三条第六項第二号に掲げる場合において、義務付けの訴えは、次の各号に掲げる要件のいずれかに該当するときに限り、提起することができる。

no original administrative disposition or administrative determination is made within a reasonable period of time in response to an application filed or request for administrative review made under the laws and regulations; or

当該法令に基づく申請又は審査請求に対し相当の期間内に何らの処分又は裁決がされないこと。

an original administrative disposition or administrative determination is made to dismiss with or without prejudice an application filed or a request for administrative review made under the laws and regulations, but the original administrative disposition or administrative determination should be revoked or is invalid or has never existed.

当該法令に基づく申請又は審査請求を却下し又は棄却する旨の処分又は裁決がされた場合において、当該処分又は裁決が取り消されるべきものであり、又は無効若しくは不存在であること。

A mandamus action set forth in the preceding paragraph may be filed only by a person who has filed an application or made a request for administrative review under the laws and regulations prescribed in each item of that paragraph.

前項の義務付けの訴えは、同項各号に規定する法令に基づく申請又は審査請求をした者に限り、提起することができる。

A mandamus action set forth in paragraph (1) must be filed by joining with it each of the actions specified in the following items according to the categories of cases listed in the respective items. In this case, if there are special provisions in any other law with regard to the jurisdiction over a suit pertaining to each of the actions specified in those items, those special provisions govern the jurisdiction over the suit pertaining to the mandamus action, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 12 as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 38, paragraph (1):

第一項の義務付けの訴えを提起するときは、次の各号に掲げる区分に応じてそれぞれ当該各号に定める訴えをその義務付けの訴えに併合して提起しなければならない。この場合において、当該各号に定める訴えに係る訴訟の管轄について他の法律に特別の定めがあるときは、当該義務付けの訴えに係る訴訟の管轄は、第三十八条第一項において準用する第十二条の規定にかかわらず、その定めに従う。

in the case where the requirement set forth in paragraph (1), item (i) is satisfied:an action for the declaration of illegality of inaction to make the original administrative disposition or administrative determination prescribed in that item; or

第一項第一号に掲げる要件に該当する場合 同号に規定する処分又は裁決に係る不作為の違法確認の訴え

in the case where the requirement set forth in paragraph (1), item (ii) is satisfied:an action for the revocation of an administrative disposition or action for the declaration of nullity, etc. of the original administrative disposition or administrative determination prescribed in that item.

第一項第二号に掲げる要件に該当する場合 同号に規定する処分又は裁決に係る取消訴訟又は無効等確認の訴え

Oral arguments and judicial decisions in a mandamus action and the action specified in each item of the preceding paragraph, which are filed and joined pursuant to the provisions of that paragraph, must not be made separately.

前項の規定により併合して提起された義務付けの訴え及び同項各号に定める訴えに係る弁論及び裁判は、分離しないでしなければならない。

Where a mandamus action satisfies the requirements prescribed in paragraph (1) to paragraph (3), if it is found that the claim pertaining to the action specified in each item of paragraph (3) is well-grounded, and it is also found that the provisions of the laws and regulations which give a basis for an original administrative disposition or administrative determination pertaining to a mandamus action clearly show that the administrative authority should make the original administrative disposition or administrative determination, or it is found that the administrative authority's inaction to make the original administrative disposition or administrative determination goes beyond the bounds of the authority's discretionary power or constitutes an abuse of that power, the court makes a judgment to order that the administrative authority should make the original administrative disposition or administrative determination pertaining to the mandamus action.

義務付けの訴えが第一項から第三項までに規定する要件に該当する場合において、各号に定める訴えに係る請求に理由があると認められ、かつ、その義務付けの訴えに係る処分又は裁決につき、行政庁がその処分若しくは裁決をすべきであることがその処分若しくは裁決の根拠となる法令の規定から明らかであると認められ又は行政庁がその処分若しくは裁決をしないことがその裁量権の範囲を超え若しくはその濫用となると認められるときは、裁判所は、その義務付けの訴えに係る処分又は裁決をすべき旨を命ずる判決をする。

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (4), when the court finds, in consideration of the developments in proceedings and other circumstances, that it will contribute to more expeditious settlement of the dispute to make a final judgment only with regard to the action specified in each item of paragraph (3), the court may make a final judgment only with regard to that action. In this case, when the court has made a final judgment only with regard to that action, it may, until litigation proceedings for that action are completed, suspend litigation proceedings for a mandamus action, hearing opinions from the parties.

第四項の規定にかかわらず、裁判所は、審理の状況その他の事情を考慮して、第三項各号に定める訴えについてのみ終局判決をすることがより迅速な争訟の解決に資すると認めるときは、当該訴えについてのみ終局判決をすることができる。この場合において、裁判所は、当該訴えについてのみ終局判決をしたときは、当事者の意見を聴いて、当該訴えに係る訴訟手続が完結するまでの間、義務付けの訴えに係る訴訟手続を中止することができる。

A mandamus action set forth in paragraph (1) which seeks an order to the effect that an administrative authority should make a certain administrative determination may be filed only in cases where a request for an administrative review of the original administrative disposition has been made and no action for the revocation of the original administrative disposition or action for the declaration of nullity, etc. of the original administrative disposition may be filed.

第一項の義務付けの訴えのうち、行政庁が一定の裁決をすべき旨を命ずることを求めるものは、処分についての審査請求がされた場合において、当該処分に係る処分の取消しの訴え又は無効等確認の訴えを提起することができないときに限り、提起することができる。

Read this in its chapter

© 2026 japanlaw.orgA copy for reading and reference — not an official source, and not legal advice. Only the Japanese text published by the government has legal effect.SourcesTermsPrivacy