Administrative action - gyosei koui

Japanese: 行政行為 - ぎょうせいこうい

It refers to the act of the administrative agency of a state or public organization, based on the law, exercising superior will or public authority to impose legal restrictions on citizens regarding specific facts. It is an academic concept, and various words such as order, prohibition, permission, license, patent, authorization, and disposition are used in positive law. It is originally a concept systematized by Otto Mayer, known as the father of German administrative law, based on the theory of legal acts in French administrative law and civil law. The reason why the concept of administrative acts is constituted is that acts in the above sense have unified characteristics that are different from other state acts and private law acts in terms of their purpose, nature, and function.

It is distinguished from de facto acts (road construction, administrative guidance, etc.) in that it produces legal effects, from internal acts (mutual approval of administrative agencies) in that it produces legal effects externally, from legislative acts which are general and abstract decisions in that it is an individual decision, and from contracts which are acts between equal parties in that it is a decision made by superior public authority. The term "administrative agency" here is a substantive concept, and in addition to government agencies under administrative power, courts and the Diet also fall under the category of administrative agencies insofar as they perform administrative functions.

Administrative acts are originally a concept of substantive law as mentioned above, but they were also synonymous with administrative dispositions that are subject to appeal lawsuits (Article 3 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act). However, in recent years, the concept of formal administrative dispositions has been advocated in order to expand the scope of relief as the subject of appeal lawsuits, even though they are not administrative acts under substantive law.

[Yasuhito Abe]

Classification of administrative actions

Administrative acts are classified from various viewpoints. From the viewpoint of the presence or absence of discretion, they are divided into discretionary acts and binding discretionary acts, and from the viewpoint of the necessity of documents or other certain forms, they are divided into formal acts and non-formal acts.

Traditionally, the distinction between juridical administrative acts and quasi-juridical administrative acts is important. This follows the distinction between juridical acts and quasi-juridical acts in the Civil Code. Juridical administrative acts are administrative acts that involve the expression of will, and are divided into imperative acts (orders, prohibitions, permission, exemptions) aimed at restricting people's natural freedom or lifting such restrictions, and formative acts (patents, acts of deprivation, authorization, agency) that grant or deprive people of rights, capacity to hold rights, or capacity to act that they do not naturally possess. Quasi-juridical administrative acts involve the expression of mental functions other than the expression of will (judgment, recognition, concept, etc.), and are divided into confirmation, notarization, notification, and acceptance. The practical benefits of this distinction include the fact that, with regard to juridical administrative acts, the legal effects arise based on the administrative agency's intention to effect an effect (the intention to cause a certain legal effect to occur), whereas, with regard to quasi-juridical administrative acts, they arise directly based on law; and that, with regard to juridical administrative acts, administrative agencies have some discretionary power, but with regard to quasi-juridical administrative acts, they do not have discretionary power.

However, the legal effects of juridical administrative acts also arise based on laws and regulations, and the discretion of the administrative agency is not recognized as free from the law in the case of legal (binding) discretion, so it is no different from quasi-juridical administrative acts. As for the conditions (conditions, deadlines, burdens, etc.) of administrative acts, even if they are juridical administrative acts, conditions cannot be attached in the case of legal discretion, so they cannot be distinguished from quasi-juridical administrative acts. Thus, the distinction between juridical administrative acts and quasi-juridical administrative acts is being questioned today.

[Yasuhito Abe]

Effect of administrative actions

Administrative acts have been said to have a special effect that is not found in private law acts or other state acts.

First of all, administrative actions cannot be contested (except in cases of invalidity) unless an appeal is filed within 60 days and a lawsuit is filed within six months. This is a validity recognized by statute (Article 14 of the Administrative Appeal Act, Article 14 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act) in order to stabilize administrative legal relations as early as possible (incontestability).

Next, while illegal administrative actions can generally be revoked by administrative agencies at their discretion, certain administrative actions, such as rulings on appeals, are binding on the administrative agency itself and cannot be changed even if the administrative agency realizes that it is in error (irrevocable power).

Furthermore, administrative actions, except in cases where they are automatically invalid, are said to be valid and binding on the other party unless they are revoked by a competent authority, even if they are illegal (official force). At first glance, this theory seems to go against the rule of law, but today, since there is a statutory relief rule that allows illegal administrative actions to be revoked through a lawsuit for revocation, it is said to be merely a reflection of the system in which the illegality of administrative actions cannot be contested at the level of other relief rules. For example, the reason why it is not possible to ask the current owner of a public auction property to return it without first having the public auction disposition revoked is because there is a relief method available that allows one to file a lawsuit for the revocation of the public auction disposition and to request the current owner to return it on the condition that the public auction disposition is revoked.

[Yasuhito Abe]

[References] | Discretion | Legal discretion | Meyer

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

国または公共団体の行政庁が、法に基づき、優越的な意思の発動または公権力の行使として、国民に対し、具体的事実に関し法的規制をする行為をいう。講学上の観念で、実定法上は、命ずる、禁ずる、許可、免許、特許、認可、処分など種々の語が用いられる。もともと、ドイツ行政法の父といわれるオットー・マイヤーが、フランス行政法と民法の法律行為論を背景に体系化した観念である。前記の意味での行為は、その目的・性質・機能などにおいて他の国家行為や私法行為と異なる統一的特色が認められるというのが、行政行為観念を構成する理由である。

　法的効果を生ずる点で、事実行為（道路工事、行政指導など）と区別され、法的効果が外部に生ずる点で、内部的行為（通達行政庁相互の承認など）と区別され、個別的決定である点で、一般抽象的決定である立法行為と区別され、優越的な公権力的決定である点で、対等当事者間の行為である契約と区別される。ここでいう行政庁は実質的概念で、行政権に属する官庁のほか、裁判所や国会も行政作用を行う限りここでいう行政庁にあたる。

　行政行為はもともと前記のような実体法上の観念であるが、抗告訴訟の対象となる行政処分（行政事件訴訟法3条）と同義でもあった。ただ、近時は、実体法上は行政行為ではないにもかかわらず、抗告訴訟の対象として救済範囲を拡張するために形式的行政処分なる観念が提唱されている。

［阿部泰隆］

行政行為の分類

行政行為は種々の観点から分類される。裁量の有無の観点からは自由裁量行為と覊束(きそく)裁量行為に、文書その他一定の形式の要否の観点からは要式行為と不要式行為に区別される。

　伝統的には法律行為的行政行為と準法律行為的行政行為の区別が重要である。これは民法の法律行為と準法律行為の区別に倣ったものである。法律行為的行政行為とは、意思表示を要素とする行政行為で、人の自然の自由の制限またはその制限の解除を目的とする命令的行為（下命・禁止・許可・免除）と、人が自然には有しない権利、権利能力、行為能力を付与し、または剥奪(はくだつ)する形成的行為（特許・剥権行為・認可・代理）に分けられる。準法律行為的行政行為は、意思表示以外の精神作用の発現（判断・認識・観念など）を要素とし、確認、公証、通知、受理に分けられる。この区別の実益として、法律行為的行政行為については、その法律効果は行政庁の効果意思（一定の法律的効果の発生を欲する意思）に基づいて発生するのに対し、準法律行為的行政行為にあっては、直接法規に基づいて発生すること、また行政庁は、法律行為的行政行為にあってはなんらかの裁量権を有するが、準法律行為的行政行為にあっては裁量権を有しないこと、などの差異が指摘されてきた。

　しかし、法律行為的行政行為の法律効果も法規に基づいて発生するのであるし、行政庁の裁量についても、法規（覊束）裁量の場合は法から自由な裁量が認められないので、準法律行為的行政行為と異ならない。行政行為の附款（条件・期限・負担など）についても、法律行為的行政行為でも法規裁量の場合は附款を附しえないので、準法律行為的行政行為と区別することはできない。このように今日では法律行為的行政行為と準法律行為的行政行為の区別に疑問が呈示されている。

［阿部泰隆］

行政行為の効力

行政行為には、私法行為や他の国家行為にはみられない特殊な効力があるとされてきた。

　まず行政行為は原則として60日以内に不服申立てを、6か月以内に訴えの提起をしないと、原則として（無効の瑕疵(かし)がある場合を除き）争えない。これは、行政上の法律関係を早期に安定させるために、制定法（行政不服審査法14条、行政事件訴訟法14条）により認められた効力である（不可争力）。

　次に、違法な行政行為については、行政庁が職権で取り消しうるのが原則であるが、不服申立てに対する裁決など一定の行政行為については行政庁自身を拘束し、行政庁がたとえ誤りであると気づいても変更できない効力がある（不可変更力）。

　さらに、行政行為は、当然に無効となる場合のほかは、たとえ違法でも、権限ある機関によって取り消されない限り有効であり、相手方を拘束する（公定力）といわれている。これは一見、法治主義に反する理論にみえるが、今日では、違法な行政行為については取消訴訟により取消しを求めるという救済ルールが法定されている関係上、他の救済ルールのレベルでは行政行為の違法を争うことができないという制度の反映にすぎないといわれるようになった。たとえば、公売処分の取消しを経ずに公売物件の現所有者に返還を求めることができないのは、公売処分の取消訴訟を提起し、これによる公売処分の取消しを条件に現所有者に返還を求めるという救済方法が用意されているためである。

［阿部泰隆］

[参照項目] | 自由裁量 | 法規裁量 | マイヤー

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例

<<: Government Public Relations - Gyosei Kouhou

>>: Administrative contract - Gyosei Keiyaku