Article 18Exclusion from Application of Provisions on Review Proceedings by Review Officers
第十八条（審理員による審理手続に関する規定の適用除外等）
The provisions of Article 9, Article 17, Article 24, Chapter II, Section 3 and Section 4, and Article 50, paragraph (2) of the Administrative Complaint Review Act (Act No. 68 of 2014) do not apply to a request for review of a disclosure or non-disclosure decision or an inaction related to a disclosure request.
In applying the provisions of Chapter II of the Administrative Complaint Review Act to a request for review of a disclosure or non-disclosure decision or an inaction related to a disclosure request, the phrase "a person who has been designated pursuant to the provisions of Article 9, paragraph (1) (referred to as a "review officer" below)" in Article 11, paragraph (2) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "an administrative authority to which a request for review has been filed (including an administrative authority that has taken over documents and articles pursuant to the provisions of Article 14; referred to as "reviewing agency" below) pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 (including the Cabinet Order based on Article 20, paragraph (2) of the Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs (Act No. 42 of 1999)); the term "review officer" in Article 13, paragraphs (1) and (2) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "reviewing agency"; the term "has been filed or a written opinion stating that a stay of execution prescribed in Article 40 should be issued has been submitted by a review officer" in Article 25, paragraph (7) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "has been filed"; the terms "Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc." and "has received a report to its consultation from the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc. (or when a review officer's written opinion has been submitted in the case where the consultation pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article is not necessary (excluding the cases falling under item (ii) or (iii) of the relevant paragraph), or when deliberations prescribed in item (ii) or (iii) of the relevant paragraph have been held in the cases falling under item (ii) or (iii) of the relevant paragraph) in Article 44 of that Act are deemed to be replaced with "Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board (if the President of the Board of Audit is the reviewing agency, a review board specified separately by laws; the same applies in Article 50, paragraph (1), item (iv))" and "has received a report to its consultation from the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc.", respectively; and the phrase "the review officer's written opinion or the written report from the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc. or the Council, etc." in Article 50, paragraph (1), item (iv) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board".
開示決定等又は開示請求に係る不作為に係る審査請求についての行政不服審査法第二章の規定の適用については、同法第十一条第二項中「第九条第一項の規定により指名された者（以下「審理員」という。）」とあるのは「第四条（行政機関の保有する情報の公開に関する法律（平成十一年法律第四十二号）第二十条第二項の規定に基づく政令を含む。）の規定により審査請求がされた行政庁（第十四条の規定により引継ぎを受けた行政庁を含む。以下「審査庁」という。）」と、同法第十三条第一項及び第二項中「審理員」とあるのは「審査庁」と、同法第二十五条第七項中「あったとき、又は審理員から第四十条に規定する執行停止をすべき旨の意見書が提出されたとき」とあるのは「あったとき」と、同法第四十四条中「行政不服審査会等」とあるのは「情報公開・個人情報保護審査会（審査庁が会計検査院の長である場合にあっては、別に法律で定める審査会。第五十条第一項第四号において同じ。）」と、「受けたとき（前条第一項の規定による諮問を要しない場合（同項第二号又は第三号に該当する場合を除く。）にあっては審理員意見書が提出されたとき、同項第二号又は第三号に該当する場合にあっては同項第二号又は第三号に規定する議を経たとき）」とあるのは「受けたとき」と、同法第五十条第一項第四号中「審理員意見書又は行政不服審査会等若しくは審議会等」とあるのは「情報公開・個人情報保護審査会」とする。