Before, I wrote a diary whose title was

However, according to the provisions, it seems that maid cafes and bar bars at midnight can be "requested" but not "prohibited"

Unfortunately, this problem is now becoming apparent at “pachinko parlors”.

In particular,

(1) For pachinko stores that are at high risk of infection with new corona infections,

(2) As a sanction, the local government will "publish the store name",

(3) As a result, those pachinko parlors are flooded with customers from afar.

The negative chain happens.

-----

As mentioned in the previous diary, there is no penal provision in the Enforcement Ordinance for the Special Measures Law for Countermeasures against New Influenza, etc., even when "self-restraint "request" changed to self-restraint "instruction".

At least this law doesn't stop the operation of pachinko parlors.

If so, it seems that it will be handled by a "matching technique" with another law.

After a quick survey, I think it will be a countermeasure of local governments, "Disadvantageous Disposition" in Article 2.4 in the “Administrative Procedures Act”,

This is so-called “business suspension”.

However, the pachinko parlor's business license seems to be at the police station that has jurisdiction over the store location.

In addition, there is no precedent for the suspension of operations in this case, so there is absolutely no need to consider legal interpretations (of course,not).

If you think so, you can think of abuse of administrative power ---- People's will aside.

-----

Local government: “Business suspension”

↓

Pachinko parlors: "Request for significance based on the Administrative Appeal Law" (I don't know if there is an immediate appeal in the Administrative Law)

↓

Local government: "Rejection of significance claim"

↓

Pachinko parlors: "Petition for provisional disposition of administrative order against the court"

Then,

"Mudification" will be confirmed.

(To be continued)