Search

Search provisions, jump to a law or an article

10 articles

Article 33

第三十三条

A judgment to revoke an original administrative disposition or administrative determination is binding on the administrative authority that has made the original administrative disposition or administrative determination and any other relevant administrative authority with regard to the case.

処分又は裁決を取り消す判決は、その事件について、処分又は裁決をした行政庁その他の関係行政庁を拘束する。

When a judgment is made to revoke an original administrative disposition that has dismissed an application with or without prejudice or to revoke an administrative determination that has dismissed a request for administrative review with or without prejudice, the administrative authority that has made the original administrative disposition or administrative determination must, according to the purport of the judgment, make another original administrative disposition on the application or another administrative determination on the request for administrative review.

申請を却下し若しくは棄却した処分又は審査請求を却下し若しくは棄却した裁決が判決により取り消されたときは、その処分又は裁決をした行政庁は、判決の趣旨に従い、改めて申請に対する処分又は審査請求に対する裁決をしなければならない。

The provisions of the preceding paragraph apply mutatis mutandis where an original administrative disposition made based on an application or an administrative determination upholding a request for administrative review is revoked by a judgment by reason of an illegal procedural defect.

前項の規定は、申請に基づいてした処分又は審査請求を認容した裁決が判決により手続に違法があることを理由として取り消された場合に準用する。

The provisions of paragraph (1) apply mutatis mutandis to an order of stay of execution.

第一項の規定は、執行停止の決定に準用する。

Article 34Action for Retrial by Third Party

第三十四条(第三者の再審の訴え)

Where a third party whose right is prejudiced by a judgment to revoke an original administrative disposition or administrative determination has failed to intervene in the action due to any grounds not attributable to that person and therefore failed to advance any allegation or evidence that should have affected a judgment, that person may file an action for retrial to enter an appeal against a final judgment that has become final and binding on the grounds of that failure.

処分又は裁決を取り消す判決により権利を害された第三者で、自己の責めに帰することができない理由により訴訟に参加することができなかつたため判決に影響を及ぼすべき攻撃又は防御の方法を提出することができなかつたものは、これを理由として、確定の終局判決に対し、再審の訴えをもつて、不服の申立てをすることができる。

An action set forth in the preceding paragraph must be filed within 30 days from the day on which the third party became aware of the final and binding judgment.

前項の訴えは、確定判決を知つた日から三十日以内に提起しなければならない。

The period set forth in the preceding paragraph is an unextendable period.

前項の期間は、不変期間とする。

No action set forth in paragraph (1) may be filed when a period of one year has elapsed from the day on which the judgment became final and binding.

第一項の訴えは、判決が確定した日から一年を経過したときは、提起することができない。

Article 35Effect of Judicial Decision on Burden of Court Costs

第三十五条(訴訟費用の裁判の効力)

A final and binding judicial decision on the burden of court costs in an action wherein an administrative authority affiliated with the State or a public entity stands as a party or intervener is effective against or in the interest of the State or the public entity with which the administrative authority is affiliated.

国又は公共団体に所属する行政庁が当事者又は参加人である訴訟における確定した訴訟費用の裁判は、当該行政庁が所属する国又は公共団体に対し、又はそれらの者のために、効力を有する。

Section 2 Other Actions for the Judicial Review of Administrative Dispositions

第二節 その他の抗告訴訟

Article 36Standing to Sue in an Action for Declaration of Nullity, etc.

第三十六条(無効等確認の訴えの原告適格)

An action for the declaration of nullity, etc. of an original administrative disposition or administrative determination may be filed only by a person who is likely to suffer damage from that original administrative disposition or any disposition following that administrative determination or any other person who has legal interest to seek the declaration of nullity, etc. of the original administrative disposition or administrative determination, where the person is unable to achieve the purpose by filing an action concerning the existing legal relationship which is based on the existence or non-existence of or validity or invalidity of the original administrative disposition or administrative determination.

無効等確認の訴えは、当該処分又は裁決に続く処分により損害を受けるおそれのある者その他当該処分又は裁決の無効等の確認を求めるにつき法律上の利益を有する者で、当該処分若しくは裁決の存否又はその効力の有無を前提とする現在の法律関係に関する訴えによつて目的を達することができないものに限り、提起することができる。

Article 37Standing to Sue in an Action for Declaration of Illegality of Inaction

第三十七条(不作為の違法確認の訴えの原告適格)

不作為の違法確認の訴えは、処分又は裁決についての申請をした者に限り、提起することができる。

Article 37-2Requirements for Mandamus Actions

第三十七条の二(義務付けの訴えの要件等)

In the case set forth in Article 3, paragraph (6), item (i), a mandamus action may be filed only when any serious damage is likely to be caused if a certain original administrative disposition is not made and there are no other appropriate means to avoid that damage.

第三条第六項第一号に掲げる場合において、義務付けの訴えは、一定の処分がされないことにより重大な損害を生ずるおそれがあり、かつ、その損害を避けるため他に適当な方法がないときに限り、提起することができる。

When judging whether or not any serious damage would be caused as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, the court is to consider the degree of difficulty in recovering from the damage and to take into consideration the nature and extent of the damage as well as the content and nature of the original administrative disposition.

裁判所は、前項に規定する重大な損害を生ずるか否かを判断するに当たつては、損害の回復の困難の程度を考慮するものとし、損害の性質及び程度並びに処分の内容及び性質をも勘案するものとする。

A mandamus action set forth in paragraph (1) may be filed only by a person who has legal interest to seek an order to the effect that an administrative authority should make a certain original administrative disposition.

第一項の義務付けの訴えは、行政庁が一定の処分をすべき旨を命ずることを求めるにつき法律上の利益を有する者に限り、提起することができる。

The provisions of Article 9, paragraph (2) apply mutatis mutandis with regard to the judging of whether or not there is legal interest prescribed in the preceding paragraph.

前項に規定する法律上の利益の有無の判断については、第九条第二項の規定を準用する。

Where a mandamus action satisfies the requirements prescribed in paragraph (1) and paragraph (3), if it is found that the provisions of the laws and regulations which give a basis for an original administrative disposition pertaining to a mandamus action clearly show that the administrative authority should make the original administrative disposition, or it is found that the administrative authority's inaction to make the original administrative disposition goes beyond the bounds of the agency'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.

義務付けの訴えが第一項及び第三項に規定する要件に該当する場合において、その義務付けの訴えに係る処分につき、行政庁がその処分をすべきであることがその処分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、行政庁がその処分をすべき旨を命ずる判決をする。

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。

Article 37-4Requirements for Action for Injunctive Order

第三十七条の四(差止めの訴えの要件)

An action for an injunctive order may be filed only in cases where any serious damage is likely to be caused if a certain original administrative disposition or administrative determination is made; provided, however, that this does not apply if there are any other appropriate means to avoid that damage.

差止めの訴えは、一定の処分又は裁決がされることにより重大な損害を生ずるおそれがある場合に限り、提起することができる。ただし、その損害を避けるため他に適当な方法があるときは、この限りでない。

When judging whether or not any serious damage would be caused as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, the court is to consider the degree of difficulty in recovering from the damage and to take into consideration the nature and extent of the damage as well as the content and nature of the original administrative disposition or administrative determination.

裁判所は、前項に規定する重大な損害を生ずるか否かを判断するに当たつては、損害の回復の困難の程度を考慮するものとし、損害の性質及び程度並びに処分又は裁決の内容及び性質をも勘案するものとする。

An action for an injunctive order may be filed only by a person who has legal interest to seek an order to the effect that an administrative authority should not make a certain original administrative disposition or administrative determination.

差止めの訴えは、行政庁が一定の処分又は裁決をしてはならない旨を命ずることを求めるにつき法律上の利益を有する者に限り、提起することができる。

The provisions of Article 9, paragraph (2) apply mutatis mutandis with regard to the judging of whether or not there is legal interest prescribed in the preceding paragraph.

前項に規定する法律上の利益の有無の判断については、第九条第二項の規定を準用する。

Where an action for an injunctive order satisfies the requirements prescribed in paragraph (1) and paragraph (3), if it is found that the provisions of the laws and regulations which give a basis for an original administrative disposition or administrative determination pertaining to an action for an injunctive order clearly show that the administrative authority should not make the original administrative disposition or administrative determination, or it is found that the administrative authority's act 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 not make the original administrative disposition or administrative determination.

差止めの訴えが第一項及び第三項に規定する要件に該当する場合において、その差止め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ない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する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、行政庁がその処分又は裁決をしてはならない旨を命ずる判決をする。

Article 37-5Provisional Order of Mandamus and Provisional Injunctive Order

第三十七条の五(仮の義務付け及び仮の差止め)

Where a mandamus action is filed, if there is an urgent necessity in order to avoid any damage that cannot be compensated, which would be caused due to an original administrative disposition or administrative determination pertaining to the mandamus action not being made, and the action on the merits seems well-grounded, the court may, upon petition, make an order to the effect that an administrative authority should make the original administrative disposition or administrative determination on a provisional basis (hereinafter referred to as a "provisional order of mandamus" in this Article).

義務付けの訴えの提起があつた場合において、その義務付けの訴えに係る処分又は裁決がされないことにより生ずる償うことのできない損害を避けるため緊急の必要があり、かつ、本案について理由があるとみえるときは、裁判所は、申立てにより、決定をもつて、仮に行政庁がその処分又は裁決をすべき旨を命ずること(以下この条において「仮の義務付け」という。)ができる。

Where an action for an injunctive order is filed, if there is an urgent necessity in order to avoid any damage that cannot be compensated, which would be caused due to an original administrative disposition or administrative determination pertaining to the action for injunctive order being made, and the action on the merits seems well-grounded, the court may, upon petition, make an order to the effect that an administrative authority should not make the original administrative disposition or administrative determination on a provisional basis (hereinafter referred to as a "provisional injunctive order" in this Article).

差止めの訴えの提起があつた場合において、その差止めの訴えに係る処分又は裁決がされることにより生ずる償うことのできない損害を避けるため緊急の必要があり、かつ、本案について理由があるとみえるときは、裁判所は、申立てにより、決定をもつて、仮に行政庁がその処分又は裁決をしてはならない旨を命ずること(以下この条において「仮の差止め」という。)ができる。

No provisional order of mandamus or provisional injunctive order may be made when that order is likely to seriously affect public welfare.

仮の義務付け又は仮の差止めは、公共の福祉に重大な影響を及ぼすおそれがあるときは、することができない。

When a provisional order of mandamus is revoked by a judicial decision on an immediate appeal set forth in Article 25, paragraph (7) as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to the preceding paragraph or by an order set forth in Article 26, paragraph (1) as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the administrative authority must revoke the original administrative disposition or administrative determination that it has made based on the provisional order of mandamus.

前項において準用する第二十五条第七項の即時抗告についての裁判又は前項において準用する第二十六条第一項の決定により仮の義務付けの決定が取り消されたときは、当該行政庁は、当該仮の義務付けの決定に基づいてした処分又は裁決を取り消さなければならない。

The provisions of Article 10, paragraph (2) apply mutatis mutandis where both an action for the declaration of nullity, etc. of an original administrative disposition and an action for the judicial review of an administrative disposition against an administrative determination that has dismissed a request for an administrative review of that original administrative disposition may be filed, and the provisions of Article 20 apply mutatis mutandis where an action for the declaration of nullity, etc. of an original administrative disposition may be filed by joining it with an action for the judicial review of an administrative disposition against an administrative determination that has dismissed a request for an administrative review of that original administrative disposition.

第十条第二項の規定は、処分の無効等確認の訴えとその処分についての審査請求を棄却した裁決に係る抗告訴訟とを提起することができる場合に、第二十条の規定は、処分の無効等確認の訴えをその処分についての審査請求を棄却した裁決に係る抗告訴訟に併合して提起する場合に準用する。

第八条及び第十条第二項の規定は、不作為の違法確認の訴えに準用する。

© 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.Run by Genjido LLC (Genjido 合同会社) · [email protected]ContactSourcesTermsPrivacy