Commentary on Japan's revision of the Administrative Procedure Law
Summary〕 〔their administrative procedure law in Japan in 2004 was amended to expand the eligibility of the plaintiff to establish a temporary relief system, changing the structure of the proceedings, the establishment of a system of teaching show. The content of these changes can be achieved to some extent administrative litigation to protect the legitimate rights and interests of private sector control the executive power of the purpose, so that the effectiveness of a national relief system to facilitate national access to justice, but in response to the Chief of the diversity and complexity of administrative processes, as well as the relationship between the executive and the
judiciary, etc. may also need the institutional framework of administrative procedure law to make further adjustments.
Key Words Japan's right to relief to the effectiveness of the Administrative Procedure Law of the dominant method
In June 2004, Japan revised its development after a 42-year-old and never revised
administrative procedure law, and was put into effect in April 2005.Here to describe briefly the process of its amendment, the main content and its background and significance of the Administrative Procedure Law of China want to give the theoretical study and practice of development has brought a little inspiration and reference.
1, Japan, the process of administrative procedure law changes
Japan's current administrative procedure law (Japanese called "administrative
events, Procedural Law") is established in 1962. After the application of the Administrative Procedure Law, the Court has also developed a number of creative jurisprudence, to promote the development of the Administrative Procedure Law.
Affected by the jurisprudence of administrative law scholars have also carried out studies on the interpretation of the Administrative Procedural Law. However, to judicial review of administrative functions immobilized, case law still can not fully play
its role. Recognizing the administrative law scholars to explain the impact on the force has its limits, after which legislation on the even more powerful. In the 1990s, legislation on the tendency to be more robust, and made a revised outline the case.
However, these all need to merely modify the administrative law scholars have advocated for the center, about 40 years, Japan's Administrative Litigation Law, and no substantive changes. [?]
This situation has changed at the turn of the century. July 2, 1999, Japan set up by
the 13 members constitute a "Justice System Reform hearing." Congress passed the "justice system reform deliberations will set the Law", provides for consideration of the Council's task: In order to achieve the national judicial system is relatively easy to
use, the nation's participation in the judicial system, enrich Enforcement Act Cao ideal state and its functions to other jurisdictions reform of the system with the base plate of the whole preparation, consideration will be this basic policy of the necessary conduct an investigation to consider. [?] 2001 Nian 6 12, to consider the reform of the judicial
system will be presented to the Cabinet, "Justice System Reform hearing submissions." Reforms in the administrative proceedings, it pointed to the need for judicial and administrative role in an integrated multi-perspective review. In a concrete solution on
this issue strategy study, the need to ensure that the nature of affairs, justice reform and administrative reform point of view of integration between the movements, it is indispensable. In addition, it is necessary to fully monitor the Administrative Procedure Act, intelligence public law, administrative law dissatisfied with the review associated with the relationship between the rule of law, as well as between the State Compensation Law, an appropriate division of labor. In particular, consideration should be given to the Executive Committee and enrich the relationship between the quasi-judicial function. After all, the right administration of justice in the investigation to review the ideal state, the carefully constructed Yin Wei rule the administrative and judicial role, functions and boundaries, in particular the relationship between the three powers of justice is not lacking. The effectiveness of relief from the national rights-
oriented perspective, based on the administrative role of the control functions of the ideal state and its enhanced strategy, the overall insight into the administrative
processes required in the "law of dominance" the basic idea, the right of justice and administration of their respective the role of an integrated multi-angle studies. The
Government should as soon as possible including the re-understanding of the
Administrative Procedure Law, including judicial review of administrative conduct a formal review of the ideal start. [?]
According to November 16, 2001 published "Judicial Reform, Law" provisions in the Judicial Reform Headquarters set up a "review of administrative action would be"
(ie, the study of administrative proceedings, the President: Dong-A University
Professor Hiroshi Shiono). From February 18, 2002, the administrative proceedings the review will consider the experience of 27 back on January 6, 2004 issued a "re-
understanding of administrative litigation system view." The Government review will be based on administrative proceedings, after finishing the formation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the opinion revision on March 2 formally proposed
to Congress. House of Representatives, the Senate has considered the adoption on June 2, and as Law No. 84 published on June 9.
2, Japan, the main points of the Administrative Procedure Law revised
In Japan this time Administrative Litigation Law amendments is a substantive
content changes, from a more effective protection of the interests of the national rights of the entire relief program prepared by the viewpoint of its general administrative procedure law made changes to the following four aspects.
(A) the expansion of the scope of relief
1. Revocation of plaintiff's substantial expansion of eligibility
"Litigation is not the order to the satisfaction of the parties to concepts, but rather
designed to give real relief to the party system. Proceedings meant that brings real
benefits to the people. 'No interest without right of appeal' principle and of course, also applies to set aside the proceedings . that the Chief to deal with delinquent, the request to be withdrawn should be 'v. the interests of'. "[?] v. the interests of both subjective
and objective from the two sides to conduct investigations. The subjective, the revocation proceedings the plaintiff shall be revoked on the request handling legal stakeholders, that is plaintiffs qualifications; and objective, the withdrawal deal with the reality in the interests of the reply on the legal status. This is the cause of action on the narrow interests. In theory, the eligibility criteria for judging on the plaintiff, there
is entitled to reply that the law on the protection of the interests of the relief, said relief, said the interests worthy of protection and security, said the legality of administrative processing and other theories, [?] But Japan's Administrative Procedure Law used to
protect the interests of legal relief, said. Japanese former section 9 of the Administrative Procedure Law is only a provision that set aside the proceedings on the request is limited to the cancellation of the administrative process or award having a legal interest of the people (including even a ruling in the administrative process or the effect of the period has expired due to failure, and other reasons, later, still has through the elimination of administrative or ruling to be restored can the interests of the legal proceedings). Jurisprudence on the use of the legal protection of the interests of the standards under the Act eligible for the narrow interpretation of the plaintiff. [?] here
the law is the real titration. Positive Law as distinguished from reflex to protect the interests of the interests of, for interest is not reflective of protection, reflective nature of the interests of only a reflection of the effect of law enforcement only, individuals do
not enjoy this claim. To be critical of this doctrine and judicial practice are also limited as possible the interests of reflex contraction of interpretation. Legally protected interest, however, that the relief is still subject to national scope is too narrow the scope
of administrative supervision of a corresponding narrowing of criticism.
When revising the Administrative Procedure Law in Japan, an increase of a as the second paragraph of Article 9 that "the court ruling to determine the relative
administrative process or whether a person other than under the preceding paragraph have the legal interests, should not be only be considered as the administrative processing or decision based on the literal meaning of the Act, but also to take into
account the object and purpose of the Act, and the administrative processing should be taken into account the interests of the content and nature. On this occasion, in considering the Act the purposes and objectives, you can reference and have the
common purpose of the Act related to the purposes and objectives of the Act; in considering the interests of the content and nature, for administrative processing, or because the award was contrary to the Act as its basis and have been violated and the
interests of should, where appropriate, its content and nature of the sample against the state and degree. " This provision requires the court can not be a narrow interpretation of Positive Law eligibility requirements concerning the plaintiff, but to refer to actual
legislative intent and purpose of titration, or even refer to the relevant real-titration
purposes and objectives of the legislation, which qualified for the expansion of administrative proceedings the plaintiff is useful The.
2. Section to the statutory obligations of the proceedings of
The so-called Section to provide voluntary action is defined as a request for confirmation by the court of administrative body has a certain obligation of conduct, and ordered the administrative body for a certain behavior of litigation. In Japan, for the section of the admissibility of a voluntary action, broadly there are three kinds of views. One is to completely deny that. The doctrine of the authority subject to judicial and administrative allocation theory, that the administrative judge for the first time the right of the main body should be left to the executive power. Whether to exercise the executive power, under what conditions, in what point in time how to exercise their right to determine in principle the responsibility of the executive. Kang Gu
administrative proceedings, the main purpose of the above-mentioned for the first time
to determine the medium to withdraw its illegal to exclude their illegal status handling behavior. Administrative body did not make the first judge, the so-called request a
specific administrative act, or shall order it to make a specific administrative act of litigation, most of the proceedings should not be part of Kanggao areas. Second, to add a section to provide voluntary action that (added that). The doctrine that section to obligations of the proceedings and the revocation of a complementary relationship between action in the absence of other appropriate remedy, we can consider the application of Division on a voluntary action. The specific conditions of the administrative acts a sense of determined (see sex), and will take place will hardly damage. Third, separate sections on a voluntary action that (independent say). Whether the action be dismissed with the relief unrelated to the results of the trial judgments are ripe, court proceedings can be made on a voluntary subjects. At this time does not infringe the first administrative body the right to judge, but also does not deny the power to decide, but highlighted the need for relief to a private party. To completely deny the doctrine and jurisprudence that have been gradually largely negated. If only to consider the plaintiff's relief, then the independence is the best. But the problem is how the plaintiff's relief and the implementation of the administration to ensure the balance between cheap, legislative and whether there is room for discretion; and if so, then the scope for discretion in the existing legal system in which state? With regard to the former, the deprivation of the constitutional right to receive referee, originally is the legislative power is not permissible, but on the relief method, the legislative power enjoy a certain degree of discretion has no objection. [?] pass that
Branch was originally just a voluntary action or legal proceedings as a nameless Kang Gao Kang Gao outside litigation exist, and this time it was a statutory body, and the revised administrative procedure law obligations of the Division to the proceedings
shall be provided in an unequivocal manner. This has to a certain extent, abandoned the traditional separation of powers based on the obligations of the proceedings and not allow the section to the point of view, [?] established the "law of dominance"
principle. Modifications to the Bureau a new obligation to the proceedings, as article 3, paragraph 6: "this Act called a 'Section to provide voluntary action' refers to the following circumstances to ask the court to order the executive offices [?] to make its
administrative process or award of litigation: (1) Administrative Office should make a certain amount of administrative processing did not make time (subject to subsection (2) of the circumstances); (2) For the purposes of the Act apply for administrative
offices to make certain administrative process or decision or request for review of the occasions, the Chief Administrative Office should be made to deal with or without the making of decisions. "This academic opinion is more or less the same. Subjects from
the administrative point of view, subjects on a voluntary action lawsuits there are two typical cases, one can apply for a voluntary action to meet the type section, namely, to request the Chief of the main private sector for a certain behavior, the application is
rejected, the private request for the court to require as an administrative body. This is paid up to the administrative area. Second, is a direct-type subjects on a voluntary
action, that is, in the formulation of law there has been no application for scheduled
private - administrative body's decision such a system, the private request the Chief of the main launch of its public authority. Typical is the pollution, environmental administration and other fields. From the private point of view, these two types roughly
correspond to the interests of the Section in order to enjoy the type of litigation and prejudice to the obligation to exclude two kinds of type Branch to provide voluntary action. [?]
New Administrative Procedure Law article 37 bis, ter  provides a section to the obligation to prosecute the proceedings and the successful elements of the elements. The prosecution of elements are: first, the prosecution of the interests of the element. Division on a voluntary action is limited to the executive order on the request must be made to deal with those who have a legal interest to be able to initiate. Whether the
interests of legal judgments, permitted article 9, paragraph 2, of the provisions of, that is described in this article the above eligibility criteria for judging the plaintiff. Based on the Act on the plaintiff to review the application or request, the Chief of the main considerable period of treatment or did not make any decision, or has made a deal with rejection or inadmissible or award or the award of this treatment should be withdrawn, invalid or not exists, then the plaintiff may institute a voluntary litigation section. Act if the plaintiff is not based on an application or request for review, you can not bring
subjects to provide voluntary action. Second, the urgency. Division on a voluntary action is limited to a certain extent because they do not make a deal with the potential to cause significant harm to be filed. Court to determine whether significant damage, it
is necessary to take into account the degree of difficulty to restore the damage, but also consider the damage the nature, extent and nature of the contents of their treatment. Third, the complementary element. In order to avoid such damage occurs there is no
other appropriate methods, we can bring subjects to provide voluntary action. Requested the executive order should be made to a certain decision is limited to dealing with the request for review, you can not bring about the withdrawal of treatment or
ineffective handling of v. v such confirmation when it is filed.
The successful elements are: in line with obligations under section elements of the proceedings when the prosecution, in relation to subjects related to the handling of a voluntary action, if the court held that the administrative organs shall be dealt with and as this treatment is based on provisions of the Act is clear, or that the executive authority is not making the treatment is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of
discretion, the court may decree the executive to make of this treatment. Here in fact provides for an optional one of the successful elements, one is the clarity of the provisions of the Act or an ambiguity, which is what we usually refer the case of custodial beam in violation of this provision may be made subjects on a voluntary action ; the other is administrative body discretion to enjoy the situation, but there is exceed or abuse the situation, you can also make a section on a voluntary action. Justice
here is largely respected the choice of the executive authorities and judgments, but also under certain conditions, the administration of the first break of the right to judge.
3. To prohibit the legal proceedings of
The so-called ban litigation, also known as the prevention or preventive action to stop a lawsuit to ask the court to prohibit the Chief of the main launch a public authority. It is with the Division on a voluntary action is exactly the opposite a pair of lawsuits, the former seeks to prohibit the act, hope it will not act, the latter is intended to urge a ban on omission. The original lawsuit against the Japanese in the administrative procedure law is not expressly provided for. On the prohibition of the admissibility of the proceedings, there is no comprehensive theory on the negative
would say, but say for sure that in the supplementary nature of wandering. In the lower court's jurisprudence to allow lawsuits against the elements, with subjects on a voluntary action, are both required a sense of (administrative body should be made
administratively by the law of the custodial beam without room for discretion), emergency (not recognition of prior review, then very damaging, in advance of the need for significant relief) and complementary (no other appropriate relief methods). 
Originally as unknown outside Kang Gu Kang Gu litigation or legal proceedings to prohibit action this time was a statutory body, and that, in this modification will be banned from the proceedings in an unequivocal manner to provide for. The new
paragraph will be banned from the proceedings, as article 3, paragraph 7: "this Act referred to the 'prohibited action', that means the Chief Administrative Office should not make a certain treatment or ruling occasions to ask the court to prohibit
Administrative Office of the making of the administrative or legal decision. "in section
37 of the four specified elements of the prohibition of the prosecution proceedings. First, the interests of elements v.. Prohibiting lawsuits, limited to a request or order the
administrative offices are not allowed to make certain treatment or a legal ruling on the stakeholders, were able to initiate. To determine whether a legal interest, permitted article 9, paragraph 2 of this article. Second, the necessity element. Prohibition of
litigation, limited to a certain treatment or a ruling made by the potential to cause significant damage, were able to initiate. However, to avoid such damage other appropriate methods, is not affected by this limit. Court to determine whether
significant damage, the damage should be considered to restore the degree of difficulty, taking into consideration the nature of damage, extent, and handling or the content and nature of the award. In article 37 of the 4 also provides for successful litigation against the elements. Elements of the prohibition of prosecution proceedings, the court held that the prohibition of litigation related to treatment or decision, administrative offices should not be dealt with, and as the processing or determination or award under the provisions of the Act is clear, or that the Executive Office for processing or decision making that is to go beyond the scope of discretionary power, or abuse of discretion, and may decide to make the Executive Office for processing or decision making that are not allowed. Here in fact provides for an optional one of the successful elements, one is the clarity of the provisions of the Act or an ambiguity, which is what we usually refer the case of custodial beam in violation of this provision may be made against judgments; its Second, the administrative body discretion to enjoy the situation, but there is exceed or abuse the situation, but also can be made against judgments. Justice in the here or in large part to respect the choices and judgments the executive branch.
4. As a type of litigation lawsuit explicit confirmation
Of the original section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Law provides that parties to litigation, which provides that parties to litigation is on the confirmation or the formation of the legal relationship between the parties or determination of the administrative handling of litigation, is based on the decree as the legal relationship between a party defendant, as well as the legal relationship between public law
litigation. Modifications in the "and" after "public law recognition of the legal relationship of the v." This relationship will be recognized in public law v. explicitly as a type of litigation should be clear that, as a confirmation of the v. litigation. The purpose of the amendment, and national and administrative body of the legal relationship between the diversity of compatible to let as a confirmation of the v. litigation effectively the interests of the effectiveness of the rights of nationals of relief features, the need for special attention and recognition .  In reality, there can not explain the exercise of public authority for the Chief of the main acts of the administration, because such an act born disputes, such as the reach of judicial review of the maturity of requirements, you can make flexible use of litigation tray to ensure that the interests of the national rights of the effectiveness of relief. For example, in the middle stages of the executive planning process, because the administration of legal relations arising from acts, although it is not the national interest to bring suit but can be flexibly Kanggu litigation tray to open up the path to relief.
(B) The trial enrichment and promotion of
In order to enrich and promote the administrative proceedings the trial, this adaptation of particular new information to submit a reason for administrative processing system, and that this system provides in section 23, as Article 23 of the
"In order to understand the relationship between the proceedings, the court
considers it necessary, can draw the following treatments: (1) as the defendant's state or public bodies belong to the executive offices, or as the defendant's administrative
offices may be required to provide the preservation of its relevant administrative process or contents of the award, as the administrative processing based on the provisions of the Act stating reasons for its decisions as an administrative process or
the fact that, as well as other administrative process or the reasons for decision information (under a provision of a request with the review of case records excluded) as part of or All. (2) commissioned by the provisions of the preceding paragraph, in
addition to the administrative offices and other administrative offices to the Office of the Chief save the information specified in the preceding paragraph as part of or all.
Court review of administrative processing after the ruling on the request, but also to
bring avoidance actions, and can draw the following treatments: (1) as the defendant's state or public bodies belong to the executive offices, or as the defendant's administrative offices may be required to provide the preservation of its The request
for review with the information relating to some or all of. (2) The commission set forth in the preceding paragraph other than the Office of the Chief Administrative Office to the Administrative Office of the saved set forth in the preceding paragraph as part of
or all of the information. "
Reposted elsewhere in the paper for free download http://
(C) In order to more easily use and understand the administrative proceedings and the changes made in the construction
1. Kanggu the relevance of the proceedings the defendant from the grid to the Administrative Office of the Chief of the main Marxist doctrine changes
The original Administrative Procedure Law, the revocation of the relevance of actions taken by Georgia accused the executive Office of doctrine, also based on decisions made by administrative or executive offices for the defendant; but in an administrative process or ruling of the Administrative Office of the permissions are other administrative offices inherited, it must be as Administration, Bureau of the defendant; if there is no mentioned earlier accused Georgia of these as appropriate administrative offices, you need to set aside the proceedings or decision of the administrative processing firm is a national or public groups to the defendant. In the revision, which made the necessary adjustment.
Article 11 provides: "If an administrative process or decisions of administrative offices (there are administrative or ruling, the administrative offices and other
administrative offices of the permissions are inherited, that is the inheritance of the Administrative Office. Following the same) belong to the state or public organizations When revocation action must be filed in accordance with the following v. distinction in
their respective regulations for the accused:
(1) the abolition of administrative processing of the complaint, to make executive deal with the administrative offices of the State-owned or public body;
(2) set aside the award of the complaint, as the ruling of the Administrative Office of
the State or public body belongs.
Processing or decision made by the Chief Executive Office of the State or public body does not belong to, the revocation proceedings must be instituted in the
Administrative Office of the accused.
Qian Erkuan should be as a defendant in accordance with the provisions of the State or public body, as well as in accordance with paragraph 2, shall be the executive offices as a defendant does not exist, initiate revocation action must be to work with the administrative or decision-related firms are national or public groups to defendant. "
2. Kanggao action to expand the jurisdiction of the court
Previously, avoidance actions to the Executive Office of the general location of
courts; the real property, or site-specific treatment or decisions of administrative
revocation proceedings may be real or site-specific location to the courts, but also be
able to make administrative decisions about the handling or processing Administrative
Office of the seat of the lower courts. In order to ensure the Court's special administrative proceedings to help facilitate the plaintiffs filed suit, modify, it will be the jurisdiction of the court proceedings Kanggu be expanded. Article 12, paragraph 1,
after amendments states: "avoidance actions by the location of the defendant's ordinary trial membership  by a court or administrative or decision made by the Office of the location of the administrative jurisdiction of the Court." Amend Article 11
after the addition of the two articles. A country or an independent administrative corporation or Schedule of the legal proceedings for the revocation of the defendant may also be ordinary trial membership to the plaintiff's seat of the High Court of the
District Court seat. Ordinary trial membership to the plaintiff's seat of the High Court, the seat of the District Court dismissed the lawsuit, when based on facts or law on the same reason, and administrative processing or decision related to litigation within the meaning of other courts, Kang Gu, the specific jurisdiction of the court to consider person's residence or location, it should be the residence of the witnesses for questioning, the argument or evidence of commonality, and other violations, that the
appropriate, may, on application or ex officio, all or part of the proceedings transferred to other courts.
3. Revocation proceedings to prosecute the extension of the period
The original article 14 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the revocation proceedings during prosecution of an administrative process or from the known date of the award 3 months, and that during the same period. The revised Article 14 of the Administrative Procedure Law to remove the litigation, administrative or self-aware
date of the award after 6 months can not be filed, but there are legitimate reasons except; from the administrative processing or date of the award after one year after can not be filed, but there is a legitimate reason to be eligible. Of these during the administrative review process or decision to request the Office of wrong teaching or administrative review of requests to show the case, when there is a request for review, the relevant administrative processing or award revocation proceedings had been instituted to review requester , the self-aware of the decision on the request for review
the day after a 6 months or since the date of the award after a year, you can not bring, but there is a legitimate reason to be eligible.
4. To teach the creation of the system shows
Nationals of the elements of the litigation avoidance actions is not easy to understand. Previously, the lack of legal cause of action elements many of which are dismissed. In order to provide administrative processing on the basis of relative revocation proceedings to resolve administrative disputes and other appropriate information, to fully guarantee the rights of the relative who get the chance of relief, Japan has absorbed the Administrative Procedure Law, "not agree with review of administrative law" experience in the Rule 46 The new system of teaching show. Administrative Office to make revocation proceedings may be instituted administrative or ruling, or award for the administrative processing of the relative who must be in writing to teach show the following: (1) should be handled with the administration or award revocation proceedings related to the defendant persons; (2) and the administrative processing or revocation of a ruling related to the prosecution of the proceedings during the period; (3) The law requires that administrative processing without a ruling on the request for review will not be able to bring the annulment of administrative processing of the v., the required intent. By law for the administrative processing of the request for review of the decision to initiate revocation proceedings, administrative offices under the administrative processing, relative to the administrative processing, must show in writing to teach to this provision of the law.
Administrative Office of the confirmation or the formation of the legal relationship between the parties or determination of administrative processing, according to the law, in making in order to be able to bring one of the parties to the legal relations of administrative proceedings for the accused process or decision, or award for the administrative processing The relative who must be in writing to teach show the following: (1) shall serve as the action of the defendants; (2) during the prosecution of
the action. However, if made orally to the Executive Office of the Chief processed without the above constraints.
(D) the expansion of the temporary relief system
Temporary relief system is a kind of res judicata in the Court before the end of the proceedings to the parties in order to prevent damage caused by the implementation of some kind of emergency and temporary relief system. This system not only for the protection of liberty and property of nationals of great significance to take preventive measures, legally binding for all of the executive also has control of the actual situation of the objective function. The executive can make a timely entry into force of national unilateral adjustment, but this adjustment is a specific legal remedies may be subject to delay the effectiveness of the relaxation. Legal remedies can be organized in time for at least the occurrence of the implementation, until the courts render a decision on the subject matter of litigation.  In China, the interim relief proceedings to stop the implementation of the system is limited to the case. Changes in Japan before the Administrative Procedure Law as well. The modification of interim relief system to be enriched and improved, in order to effectively and fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties provided a good path, it is worthy of our country learn from them.
1. To stop the implementation of elements of the relaxation
And China's Administrative Procedure Law, Japan's Administrative Procedure Law also provides that the proceedings did not stop the implementation of the principle. Article 25 of the Act provides that "the revocation of administrative processing of the chief complaint filed, without prejudice to the effectiveness of
treatment to deal with the implementation and conduct of the proceedings." The aim is
to ensure the smooth administrative operations, to prevent the abuse of v.. Stay of execution exists only as an exception, its element is also particularly stringent: positive element is that if the implementation will result in damage and will hardly be disposed of in urgent need is to stop the implementation of its passive elements can not be a significant impact on social well-being, or can not be stoppedPerform.
And critical to stop the implementation of the corresponding elements of too strict, in order to stop the implementation of the system more easily by the National use of this time, changes in the administrative procedure law to ease the stay of execution of
the elements, will change it from "hard to reply damage" to "significant damage to "(Article 25, paragraph 2). In other words, now the court to stop the implementation of the elements according to the application include revocation proceedings have been
instituted, do not stop the implementation will result in significant damage and need to be stopped. To determine whether significant damage, the revised provisions of the administrative procedure law, we must consider the degree of difficulty to restore the damage, the nature and extent of the damage, as well as the content and nature of the administrative processing (Article 25, paragraph 3).
2. Provisional Branch of the creation of a voluntary system,
With the Division on a voluntary actions accompanied by a statutory body, as the Division on a voluntary system of interim relief proceedings, the Administrative Procedure Law Section in the creation of a temporary duty system, and as the Administrative Procedure Law Article 37 of the first paragraph of Article 5. Has been filed in the Division on a voluntary proceedings, in order to avoid because they do not party to the litigation-related subjects on a voluntary administrative process or award
compensation for damage resulting from difficulty, while the necessary emergency procedures, and reasons for involving the case, the court According to the application may be an interim order that the executive shall be made administratively or award. However, the temporary section to the obligation has the potential to suffer a significant impact on public welfare, then can not make.
3. The creation of the temporary ban system
And prohibited v. accompanied by a statutory body, as a prohibited v. temporary
relief system, the Administrative Procedure Law to prohibit the creation of a temporary litigation, and as the Administrative Procedure Law Article 37 of the second paragraph of Article 5. Has been filed, when a ban v., to avoid the prohibition of v. As a
result of the related administrative processing or award compensation for damage resulting from difficulty, but there is an urgent need to dispose of, and reasons for involving in this case, the court upon application, may be an interim decision that the
executive authorities not to allow the making of the administrative processing or adjudication. But the temporary ban has the potential to suffer a significant impact on public welfare, then can not make.
3, Comment on changes to Japan's Administrative Litigation Law
Japan's Administrative Procedure Law of 40 years after it conducted a relatively large substantive changes, which is Japan's accumulation theory of administrative law and the jurisprudence of the Court to promote the results, but also Japan's political,
economic and cultural development of an expression. This amendment has many