Article 1. In addition to the provisions of the present Law, the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to an action for annulment or alteration of illegal disposition made by an administrative office as well as other actions concerning public legal relations.
Article 2. No action applying for annulment or alteration of illegal disposition made by an administrative office shall be brought in before, in case the filing of a petition, a request for examination, an objection, or any other complaint, against the disposition of an administrative office (called hereinafter a petition for brevity's sake) is authorized by law and ordinance, a decision, a ruling or other measures on such (called hereinafter a decision for brevity's sake) is rendered. However, such an action may be brought in before the decision upon the petition is rendered in case the period of three months has passed since the petition was filed, or in case there is apprehension that heavy damages may be caused pending the decision upon the petition or there is any other due reason.
Article 3. In the action as mentioned in the preceding Article, the administrative office which made the disposition shall be the defendant, except the cases specified by other laws.
Article 4. The action as mentioned in Article 2 shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court within whose district the administrative office, which is the defendant, is located.
Article 5. The action as mentioned in Article 2 must be brought in within six months from the day on which the party concerned became cognizant that the disposition was made.
The period as mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be a peremptory term.
An action as mentioned in Article 2 cannot be brought in if one year has passed from the day on which such disposition was made, provided that the party concerned made a showing (Somei) that he failed to bring the action within this period with due reason.
In case a petition was lodged against a disposition, the period as mentioned in the first paragraph shall be calculated from the day when the party concerned became cognizant that a decision was rendered upon the petition, and the period as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, from the day when such decision was rendered.
The provisions of the first and third paragraphs are not applicable in cases as otherwise provided specially in other laws.
Article 6. The action as mentioned in Article 2 may be combined only with an action of claim for restitution, damage, or other claims which are related thereto (hereinafter referred to as related claims).
In cases where the Court which has jurisdiction in the first instance over the action as mentioned in Article 2 is a High Court, it is necessary to get the consent of the defendant of the action brought in reference to related claims in order to combine the actions in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph. When the defendant has made any pleading in respect to principal matters or made any statement in the preliminary proceedings, without giving objection, he shall be deemed to have given his consent to the combination of the actions.
Article 7. In cases where a plaintiff has brought an action as mentioned in Article 2 against an administrative office, mistaking it for another, he may, lite pendente, alter the defendant, provided that there was no wilful intention nor gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
When the defendant is altered under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the action against the new defendant shall be deemed to have been brought in at the time when the original action has been brought in, so far as observance of the term of bringing an action is concerned.
When the defendant is altered under the provisions of the first paragraph, the action against the old defendant shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.
Article 8. The Court may, if it deems necessary, cause, ex officio by a ruling, the administrative office or other third persons having interests in the result of the case, to intervene in the action.
The Court shall, before giving a ruling under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, hear the opinions of the parties and third persons.
Article 9. The Court, may ex officio, take evidence, if it deems necessary to do so for the sake of public interests, provided that the opinions of the parties concerned shall be heard on the result of taking such evidence.
Article 10. The execution of administrative dispositions shall not be suspended by reason of the bringing of the action as mentioned in Article 2.
When the Court admits urgent necessity to prevent the irreparable damages which may be caused by execution of such dispositions, in cases where an action as mentioned in Article 2 has been brought in, it may order, upon application or ex officio, by a ruling, the suspension of execution of dispositions. However, this shall not apply in case there is apprehension that the suspension of execution may inflict a material influence upon public interests or in case the Prime Minister raised an objection.
The objection in the preceding paragraph shall be made with the reason stated clearly.
The ruling as mentioned in the second paragraph may be given without oral proceedings, provided that the opinions of the parties concerned must be heard previously.
No complaint shall be made against the ruling as mentioned in the second paragraph.
The Court may, it any time, revoke the ruling as mentioned in the second paragraph.
The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure governing temporary disposition shall not apply to any disposition made by an administrative office.
Article 11. In case the action as mentioned in Article 2 has been brought in, the Court may reject the claim, if it considers the annulment or alteration of the disposition as against public interests after taking into consideration all circumstances conceivable, though the disposition is illegal.
In the decision as stated in the preceding paragraph, the reason must be clarified for illegality of the disposition or rejection of the claim.
The provisions of the first paragraph shall not prevent the claim for damages.
Article 12. A final judgement for a particular case shall have a binding power over the administrative office involved in that case.