When the review agency has received a review officer's written opinion, the reviewing agency that falls under the competent minister, the Grand Steward, or the head of any of the agencies prescribed in Article 49, paragraph (1) or (2) of the Act for Establishment of the Cabinet Office or Article 3, paragraph (2) of the National Government Organization Act must consult with an Administrative Complaint Review Board, and the reviewing agency that falls under the head of a local government (for an association of a local government, the head, manager, or council) must consult with the organs referred to in Article 81, paragraph (1) or (2), in the cases other than those that fall under any of the following case:
when rendering a disposition of a request for review, other laws or Cabinet Order (for a disposition based on Prefectural or Municipal Ordinance, the Ordinance) provides that the disposition should be rendered by going through deliberations or that it may be rendered by going through deliberations at an organ stated in the items of Article 9, paragraph (1) or the assemblies of local governments, or entities specified by Cabinet Order as being similar to those organs (referred to as "Council, etc." below), and, the disposition has been rendered following the deliberations;
when making a decision, other laws or Cabinet Order (for a disposition based on Prefectural or Municipal Ordinance, the Ordinance) provides that an administrative determination should be made by going through deliberations or may be made by going through deliberations at an organ stated in the items of Article 9, paragraph (1) or the assemblies of local governments, or entities specified by Cabinet Order as being similar to those organs, and, the reviewing agency intends to make an administrative determination by going through the deliberations;
when the reviewing agency intends to make an administrative determination by going through deliberations at the Council, etc. pursuant to the provisions of Article 46, paragraph (3) or Article 49, paragraph (4);
when the requestor for review has made a request that they do not wish to consult an Administrative Complaint Review Board or an organ referred to in Article 81, paragraph (1) or (2) (referred to as "Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc." below) (excluding the cases in which an intervenor has raised an objection on not consulting the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc.);
when the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc. finds that a consultation is not necessary taking into account of the extent of influence on the rights and interests of the people and the conduct of administrative affairs, and the nature of the case;
審査請求が、行政不服審査会等によって、国民の権利利益及び行政の運営に対する影響の程度その他当該事件の性質を勘案して、諮問を要しないものと認められたものである場合
when the request for review is unlawful and the reviewing agency intends to dismiss the request;
審査請求が不適法であり、却下する場合
when the reviewing agency intends to revoke the dispositions related to the request for review in full (excluding a disposition to dismiss or reject an application based on laws and regulations, and de facto acts) pursuant to the provisions of Article 46, paragraph (1), or order that the de fact acts related to the request for review should be eliminated in full or decide to eliminate the de facto acts in full pursuant to the provisions of Article 47, item (i) or (ii) (excluding the cases in which a written opinion to oppose the revocation of the disposition in full or the order or decision to eliminate the de facto acts in full has been submitted, and the case in which an opinion to that effect has been stated in the oral opinion statement); or
when the reviewing agency decides to take the measures specified in the items of Article 46, paragraph (2) or the items of Article 49, paragraph (3) (limited to measures ordering that the application based on laws and regulations should be approved in full, or measures that approves the application in full) (excluding the cases in which a written opinion opposing the approval of the application in full has been submitted and cases in which an opinion to that effect has been stated in the oral opinion statement).
The consultation under the provisions of the preceding paragraph must be made by attaching copies of the review officer's written opinion and the case record.
The reviewing agency that has consulted with the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc. pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) must notify the persons concerned with proceedings (when the administrative agency, etc. reaching the disposition is the reviewing agency, the requestor for review and the intervenor) the fact that it has consulted the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc. and send those persons a copy of the review officer's written opinion.
Read this with the articles around it
When the review agency has received a review officer's written opinion, the reviewing agency that falls under the competent minister, the Grand Steward…
審査庁は、審理員意見書の提出を受けたときは、次の各号のいずれかに該当する場合を除き、審査庁が主任の大臣又は宮内庁長官若しくは内閣府設置法第四十九条第一項若しくは第二項若しくは国家行政組織法第三条第二項に規定する庁の長である場合にあっては行政不服審査会に…
Open this provision(Approval of Requests for Review of Dispositions)
When there are grounds for a request for review of a disposition (excluding de facto acts; the same applies below in this Article and Article 48)…
処分（事実上の行為を除く。以下この条及び第四十八条において同じ。）についての審査請求が理由がある場合（前条第三項の規定の適用がある場合を除く。）には、審査庁は、裁決で、当該処分の全部若しくは一部を取り消し、又はこれを変更する。
Open this provision(Approval of Requests for Review of Dispositions)
When revoking a disposition to dismiss or reject in full or in part an application based on laws and regulations pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph…
前項の規定により法令に基づく申請を却下し、又は棄却する処分の全部又は一部を取り消す場合において、次の各号に掲げる審査庁は、当該申請に対して一定の処分をすべきものと認めるときは、当該各号に定める措置をとる。
Open this provision(Approval of Requests for Review of Dispositions)
When there are provisions providing that a certain disposition prescribed in the preceding paragraph should go through deliberations prescribed in Article 43, paragraph (1), item (i)…
前項に規定する一定の処分に関し、第四十三条第一項第一号に規定する議を経るべき旨の定めがある場合において、審査庁が前項各号に定める措置をとるために必要があると認めるときは、審査庁は、当該定めに係る審議会等の議を経ることができる。
Open this provisionthe reviewing agency other than the administrative agency reaching the disposition:to order the administrative agency reaching the disposition to eliminate in full or in part the de facto act…
処分庁以外の審査庁 当該処分庁に対し、当該事実上の行為の全部若しくは一部を撤廃し、又はこれを変更すべき旨を命ずること。
Open this provisionthe reviewing agency that is the administrative agency reaching the disposition:to eliminate in full or in part the de facto act, or to change the act.
処分庁である審査庁 当該事実上の行為の全部若しくは一部を撤廃し、又はこれを変更すること。
Open this provision(Administrative Determinations for Requests for Review Regarding Inaction)
When there are grounds for a request for review regarding inaction, the reviewing agency is to declare that the inaction is illegal or unjust by an administrative determination.
不作為についての審査請求が理由がある場合には、審査庁は、裁決で、当該不作為が違法又は不当である旨を宣言する。この場合において、次の各号に掲げる審査庁は、当該申請に対して一定の処分をすべきものと認めるときは、当該各号に定める措置をとる。
Open this provision(Administrative Determinations for Requests for Review Regarding Inaction)
When there are provisions providing that the disposition of inaction related to a request for review should go through deliberations prescribed in Article 43, paragraph (1), item (i)…
審査請求に係る不作為に係る処分に関し、第四十三条第一項第一号に規定する議を経るべき旨の定めがある場合において、審査庁が前項各号に定める措置をとるために必要があると認めるときは、審査庁は、当該定めに係る審議会等の議を経ることができる。
Open this provisionA local government establishes an organ for dealing with the matters that have been placed under its authority pursuant to the provisions of this Act as an organ affiliated to its executive agencies.
地方公共団体に、執行機関の附属機関として、この法律の規定によりその権限に属させられた事項を処理するための機関を置く。
Open this provisionNotwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, when it is inappropriate or difficult to establish an organ referred to in that paragraph in view of the situation of complaints filed in…
前項の規定にかかわらず、地方公共団体は、当該地方公共団体における不服申立ての状況等に鑑み同項の機関を置くことが不適当又は困難であるときは、条例で定めるところにより、事件ごとに、執行機関の附属機関として、この法律の規定によりその権限に属させられた事項を処理するための機関を置くこととすることができる。
Open this provision(Review Officers)
An administrative agency with which a request for review has been filed pursuant to the provisions of Article 4, or the provisions of other laws or Prefectural or Municipal Ordinance…
第四条又は他の法律若しくは条例の規定により審査請求がされた行政庁（第十四条の規定により引継ぎを受けた行政庁を含む。以下「審査庁」という。）は、審査庁に所属する職員（第十七条に規定する名簿を作成した場合にあっては、当該名簿に記載されている者）のうちから第三節に規定する審理手続（この節に規定する手続を含む。）を行う者を指…
Open this provisiondisposition
「処分」
In this Act, a disposition (処分) of an administrative agency (行政庁) or any other act that is an exercise of public authority (公権力): the acts against which this Act lets a person appeal, unless another Act (法律) provides otherwise.
Short name set inArticle 1, paragraph (2)
administrative agency, etc. reaching the dispositionmachine translation
「処分庁等」
The administrative agency that made the disposition (処分庁) or the administrative agency that failed to act (不作為庁) on an application, whichever the request for review (審査請求) concerns.
Defined inArticle 4, paragraph (1), item (i)
reviewing agency
「審査庁」
The administrative agency (行政庁) with which a request for review (審査請求) has been filed under Article 4 or under another Act (法律) or a local ordinance (条例), including one that took the case over under Article 14 when the power to decide it passed to it through a change in the laws and regulations (法令).
Short name set inArticle 9, paragraph (1)
intervenor
「参加人」
A person who takes part in a request for review (審査請求) under Article 13, paragraph (1) or (2): an interested person (利害関係人) who joins with the review officer's (審理員) permission, or one the review officer asks to join.
Short name set inArticle 13, paragraph (4)
persons concerned with proceedings
「審理関係人」
The person requesting review (審査請求人), any intervenor (参加人) and the agency that made the disposition or failed to act (処分庁等), taken together as the parties to the proceedings on a request for review (審査請求).
Short name set inArticle 28, paragraph (1)
written opinion
「意見書」
A written statement of opinion on the case that an intervenor (参加人) may submit in the proceedings on a request for review (審査請求); in Article 40 and Article 42, paragraph (1) the same word means the review officer's (審理員) written opinions instead.
Short name set inArticle 30, paragraph (2)· applies from here on, except in Article 40; and Article 42, paragraph (1)
oral opinion statement
「口頭意見陳述」
The statement of opinion on the case that a person requesting review (審査請求人) or an intervenor (参加人) makes orally, on their request under Article 31, paragraph (1), on a date and at a place the review officer (審理員) sets, with all the persons concerned with the proceedings (審理関係人) called to attend.
Short name set inArticle 31, paragraph (2)
case record
「事件記録」
The documents and other objects relating to a request for review (審査請求) — the written request for review (審査請求書), the written explanation (弁明書) and others — that a Cabinet Order (政令) specifies, which the review officer (審理員) submits to the reviewing agency (審査庁) with the review officer's written opinion (審理員意見書).
Defined inArticle 41, paragraph (3)· applies only in this provision and in Article 42, paragraph (2); and Article 43, paragraph (2)
review officer's written opinion
「審理員意見書」
The written opinion on the determination (裁決) the reviewing agency (審査庁) should make, which the review officer (審理員) must prepare without delay once the review proceedings are closed.
Short name set inArticle 42, paragraph (1)
Council, etc.
「審議会等」
The commissions and other bodies listed in Article 9, paragraph (1), the assemblies of local governments (地方公共団体の議会), and bodies a Cabinet Order (政令) specifies as similar to them, whose deliberation another Act (法律) or a Cabinet Order (or, for a disposition based on a local ordinance (条例), the ordinance) may require or allow before a disposition (処分) is made.
Short name set inArticle 43, paragraph (1), item (i)
Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc.
「行政不服審査会等」
The Administrative Complaint Review Board (行政不服審査会) or a body a local government (地方公共団体) sets up under Article 81, paragraph (1) or (2), which a reviewing agency (審査庁) consults on a request for review (審査請求).
Short name set inArticle 43, paragraph (1), item (iv)
Administrative Complaint Review Board
行政不服審査会
A board set up in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (総務省) to deal with the matters the Administrative Complaint Review Act puts in its charge (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 67). Where the agency deciding a request for review (審査請求) is the competent minister (主任の大臣), the Grand Steward of the Imperial Household Agency (宮内庁長官) or the head of certain agencies, it must as a rule consult the board once the review officer (審理員) has handed in an opinion — but not, among other cases, where a council already deliberated on the disposition (処分), where the person requesting the review has said they do not want the board consulted and no intervenor (参加人) objects, where the request is unlawful and is dismissed, or where a disposition other than one refusing an application is to be revoked in full, or an application is to be granted in full, and no one has opposed that; where the agency is the head of a local government (地方公共団体), it consults a body the local government sets up instead (Articles 43, paragraph (1), and 81). Another Act can send the consultation to a body of its own instead, or do without it: a request for review of a decision on disclosure under the Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs is put to the Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board (情報公開・個人情報保護審査会) (Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs, Articles 18, paragraph (2), and 19, paragraph (1); Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 1, paragraph (2)). The board has nine members, part-time, though up to three may be full-time (Article 68), appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications (総務大臣), with the consent of both Houses of the Diet (国会), from people who can judge fairly and have outstanding insight into law or administration, for three years (Article 69, paragraphs (1) and (4)). It examines each case in a panel of three members it names, or of all its members where it so decides (Article 72). When it has answered a consultation, it sends a copy of its written report (答申書) to the person who requested the review and to any intervenor, and makes the report public (Article 79). The agency that consulted it must then make its determination (裁決) without delay, and where the determination's conclusion differs from the report, it must give the reasons for that (Articles 44 and 50, paragraph (1), item (iv)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 43, 44, 50, 67, 68, 69, 72, 79, 81 and Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs, Arts. 18, 19 as a reference.
Prefectural or Municipal Ordinance
条例
A rule a local government makes for itself: a prefecture (都道府県), a city, town or village (市町村), or one of Tokyo's special wards (特別区) (Local Autonomy Act, Articles 1-3, 281 and 283). Its assembly (議会), whose members the residents elect, passes it (Articles 89 and 96, paragraph (1), item (i)), and its head — the governor or the mayor (Article 139) — promulgates it, that is, makes it public so that it can take effect (Article 16). The Constitution lets local governments make them within the limits of Acts (Constitution, Article 94), and one may not go against the national laws and regulations (法令), such as Acts, Cabinet Orders (政令) and Ministerial Orders (省令) (Local Autonomy Act, Article 14, paragraph (1)). Unless national laws and regulations provide otherwise, a local government can impose a duty or restrict a right only by one of these (Article 14, paragraph (2)), and it may write into one penalties for breaking it, within limits the Local Autonomy Act sets (Article 14, paragraph (3)). It is made for that local government's own affairs (Article 2, paragraph (2) and Article 14, paragraph (1)), so the same matter can be handled differently from one place to the next. It is a local rule, not a national one: an "ordinance" in the name of a national rule, such as an Ordinance for Enforcement of an Act, is usually a Ministerial Order (省令) or another national instrument.
Written by AI using Constitution, Art. 94 and Local Autonomy Act, Arts. 1-3, 2, 14, 16, 89, 96, 139, 281, 283 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.