Restaurant Suspension After Oral Guidance
A prefectural food-safety ordinance allows the governor to suspend a restaurant license for up to 30 days for a 'serious violation.' On 2 February an inspector finds a cooler at 9°C instead of the required 5°C and one package labeled expired three days earlier. The inspector gives oral guidance to correct within seven days; no written notice is issued. The owner repairs the cooler on 4 February and emails a photo. On 6 February the prefecture suspends the license for 30 days effective 7 February, citing 'serious violation and risk to public health.' No hearing is held and the owner is not shown the evidence. The ordinance says the governor 'may' suspend and lists repeated violations as an example of seriousness. This is the owner's first violation in 12 years. The closure cancels a booked wedding reception and causes ¥2.1 million in lost profit. The owner wants to challenge the suspension.
1. Was the suspension substantively lawful?
Read the worked answer
Probably not. Discretion under 'may' is not unlimited; the agency must pursue the statutory purpose with objective criteria and proportionality. A single temperature deviation corrected within the guidance period, a three-day labeling error, and 12 years without violations do not fit 'serious violation,' especially when the ordinance's own example is repeated violations. There is no finding of contamination or illness. The owner relied on the inspector's oral guidance and complied before the suspension. Sudden suspension after compliance is inconsistent and disproportionate. The lost wedding profit shows severe impact. The agency should have warned, fined, or ordered reinspection. The suspension is likely an abuse of discretion and substantively unlawful.
2. What procedural defects matter?
Read the worked answer
License suspension is an adverse disposition. Under administrative procedure law, the agency must give notice of the facts and an opportunity for a hearing or explanation before suspending. Here no hearing, no notice of evidence, and only a conclusory reason. The owner could not respond to the 'risk to public health' finding. The defect is not harmless because the facts were contested, including the compliance date and seriousness. Written reasons are inadequate. Procedural illegality independently supports cancellation. The agency cannot cure by issuing reasons after the lawsuit if the owner had no chance to be heard before the closure.
3. What remedies and timing should the owner use?
Read the worked answer
The owner should file an administrative appeal and a cancellation suit promptly; in Japan a cancellation suit must generally be brought within six months of learning of the disposition. An administrative appeal does not automatically stay the suspension, so the owner should apply for suspension of execution to reopen during the case. A damages claim under the State Redress Act can recover proven lost profits if the suspension is illegal and the loss is foreseeable; the wedding contract and deposit records are key. The owner must mitigate by rescheduling or using another venue. If the suspension has already run, the cancellation suit may be moot, but damages and a declaration of illegality may remain.