When having been nominated by the reviewing agency, a review officer must immediately send a copy of the written request for review or written statement concerning the request for review to the administrative agency, etc. reaching the disposition; provided, however, that this does not apply if the administrative agency, etc. reaching the disposition is the reviewing agency.
A review officer is to specify a reasonable period of time and request the administrative agency, etc. reaching the disposition to submit a written explanation.
The administrative agency, etc. reaching the disposition must enter the matters specified in the following items in accordance with the category of the cases referred to in each of those items in the written explanation referred to in the preceding paragraph:
a written explanation on a request for review of a disposition:the content of and the reasons for the disposition; and
処分についての審査請求に対する弁明書 処分の内容及び理由
a written explanation on a request for review of inaction:the reasons for not having reached a disposition, and the scheduled time and content of the disposition, and the reasons for the disposition.
When the administrative agency reaching the disposition is to hold the following documents, the documents are to be attached to the written explanation stated in item (i) of the preceding paragraph:
the record referred to in Article 24, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (Act No. 88 of 1993) and the written report referred to in paragraph (3) of that Article; and
行政手続法（平成五年法律第八十八号）第二十四条第一項の調書及び同条第三項の報告書
the written explanation prescribed in Article 29, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
行政手続法第二十九条第一項に規定する弁明書
When a written explanation has been submitted by the administrative agency, etc. reaching the disposition, a review officer must send the written explanation to the requestor for review and the intervenors.
Read this with the articles around it
(Hearing Records and Written Reports)
The presiding official must prepare a record of the proceedings of the hearing, and must clarify the outline of the statements by relevant persons and intervenors on the facts that are the cause of…
主宰者は、聴聞の審理の経過を記載した調書を作成し、当該調書において、不利益処分の原因となる事実に対する当事者及び参加人の陳述の要旨を明らかにしておかなければならない。
Open this provision(Hearing Records and Written Reports)
After the hearing is concluded, the presiding official must promptly prepare a written report stating their opinion as to whether there are any grounds for the assertion of the relevant persons or…
主宰者は、聴聞の終結後速やかに、不利益処分の原因となる事実に対する当事者等の主張に理由があるかどうかについての意見を記載した報告書を作成し、第一項の調書とともに行政庁に提出しなければならない。
Open this provision(Method of Granting Opportunity for Explanation)
Except when an administrative agencies agency authorizes giving an explanation orally, explanation is to be made by submitting a document stating an explanation…
弁明は、行政庁が口頭ですることを認めたときを除き、弁明を記載した書面（以下「弁明書」という。）を提出してするものとする。
Open this provision(Submission of Written Explanations)
A review officer is to specify a reasonable period of time and request the administrative agency, etc. reaching the disposition to submit a written explanation.
審理員は、相当の期間を定めて、処分庁等に対し、弁明書の提出を求めるものとする。
Open this provision(Submission of Written Explanations)
a written explanation on a request for review of a disposition:the content of and the reasons for the disposition; and
処分についての審査請求に対する弁明書 処分の内容及び理由
Open this provisiondisposition
「処分」
In this Act, a disposition (処分) of an administrative agency (行政庁) or any other act that is an exercise of public authority (公権力): the acts against which this Act lets a person appeal, unless another Act (法律) provides otherwise.
Short name set inArticle 1, paragraph (2)
administrative agency takes no action
「不作為」
An administrative agency's (行政庁) failure to make any disposition (処分) at all on an application made to it under laws and regulations (法令).
Defined inArticle 3, paragraph (1)
administrative agency reaching the disposition
「処分庁」
The administrative agency (行政庁) that made the disposition (処分) concerned.
Short name set inArticle 4, paragraph (1), item (i)
administrative agency, etc. reaching the dispositionmachine translation
「処分庁等」
The administrative agency that made the disposition (処分庁) or the administrative agency that failed to act (不作為庁) on an application, whichever the request for review (審査請求) concerns.
Defined inArticle 4, paragraph (1), item (i)
reviewing agency
「審査庁」
The administrative agency (行政庁) with which a request for review (審査請求) has been filed under Article 4 or under another Act (法律) or a local ordinance (条例), including one that took the case over under Article 14 when the power to decide it passed to it through a change in the laws and regulations (法令).
Short name set inArticle 9, paragraph (1)
review officer
「審理員」
The person a reviewing agency (審査庁) designates under Article 9, paragraph (1), from among its own staff (or from the list under Article 17 where it has made one), to conduct the proceedings on a request for review (審査請求).
Short name set inArticle 11, paragraph (2)
intervenor
「参加人」
A person who takes part in a request for review (審査請求) under Article 13, paragraph (1) or (2): an interested person (利害関係人) who joins with the review officer's (審理員) permission, or one the review officer asks to join.
Short name set inArticle 13, paragraph (4)
written statement concerning the request for reviewmachine translation
「審査請求録取書」
The written record an administrative agency (行政庁) makes, under the second sentence of Article 20, of what a person states when filing a request for review (審査請求) orally.
Defined inArticle 21, paragraph (2)· applies only in this provision and in Article 29, paragraph (1); and Article 55
request for review
審査請求
A request to an administrative agency (行政庁) to review a disposition (処分) the person objects to, or, where the person applied for a disposition under a law or regulation and a reasonable time has passed with none made, the agency's failure to act (不作為) (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Articles 2 and 3). Unless an Act, or for a disposition based on a local ordinance (条例) that ordinance, provides otherwise, it is made to the agency that made the disposition or failed to act where that agency has no superior agency or is itself the competent minister (主任の大臣) or the head of certain agencies; where such a minister or head is the agency above it, to that minister or head; and otherwise to its highest superior agency (Article 4). Another Act can set rules of its own for it, naming another body to make it to or another route (Article 1, paragraph (2); Article 4): the Employees' Pension Insurance Act, for instance, has a request about a disposition (処分) of the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare (厚生労働大臣) on a person's status as insured, standard remuneration or insurance benefits, other than a decision on a request to correct the pension insurance register, made to a social insurance examiner (社会保険審査官), and disapplies most of the Administrative Complaint Review Act's rules for it (Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Articles 90, paragraph (1), and 91-2). Under the Administrative Complaint Review Act, a request about a disposition must be made within three months of the day after the person learned of it — or one month after learning of the decision, where a request for re-investigation (再調査の請求) was made first — and within a year of the disposition or that decision, unless there is a justifiable reason (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 18, paragraphs (1) and (2)). Making one does not by itself stop the disposition taking effect or being carried out, or the proceedings going on (Article 25, paragraph (1)), but the agency reviewing it can suspend them in whole or in part on the application of the person who made the request — and, where it made the disposition or is the agency above the one that did, of its own motion — and, once the person who made the request has applied, must where that is urgently needed to avoid serious harm, unless that would seriously affect the public welfare or the request appears to have no grounds (Article 25, paragraphs (2) to (4)). The agency reviewing it (審査庁) decides it by a determination (裁決): it dismisses a request that is unlawful, for instance one made too late, rejects one that is groundless, and, where one is well founded, revokes the disposition in whole or in part or changes it — though never to the disadvantage of the person who made the request, and an agency that neither made the disposition nor is above the agency that did cannot change it (Articles 45, paragraphs (1) and (2), 46, paragraph (1), and 48). Where the request is about a de facto act (事実上の行為), the determination instead declares the act unlawful or unjust and orders it abolished in whole or in part or changed, or abolishes or changes it (Article 47). A well-founded request about a failure to act ends instead in a determination declaring the failure unlawful or unjust, and, where the agency finds a disposition should be made, an order to make it or the disposition itself (Article 49, paragraph (3)). Where revoking an unlawful or unjust disposition, or abolishing an unlawful or unjust de facto act, would seriously harm the public interest, the agency can reject the request while declaring in the determination that it is unlawful or unjust (Article 45, paragraph (3)). The determination takes effect when it is served on the person who made the request — or, where someone other than the disposition's addressee made it and the determination revokes or changes the disposition or deals with a de facto act, once it is served on the addressee too — and binds the agencies concerned (Articles 51, paragraph (1), and 52, paragraph (1)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 1 to 4, 18, 25, 45 to 49, 51, 52 and Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Arts. 90, 91-2 as a reference.